LJWorld.com weblogs Vantage Point

My choice for president

Advertisement

The time is almost at hand to cast my first-ever vote, and I have decided to vote for the person based on three issues that are important to me. The first one I briefly mentioned in my last column. Whom would I trust to provide protection for my family if we were stranded overseas during or prior to conflict? The second issue is taxation. Both candidates have said much on this subject, but I'm not sure if either one of them will be able to pull off what they promised. When it comes to money, alliance and stance can easily be influenced. So instead of looking at what they promise, I looked at their principles to decide on my vote. A couple of thing about Obama bother me on the issue of money. Last month he raised over $150 million. When someone has the ability to get that much money I am leery about what might be expected in return. The quid pro quo is very alive in the arena of politics. I'm not saying that Obama is corrupt or unethical, but when he makes himself available for others to give him that much money, one day they will call in a favor. Obama might do the right thing and not succumb, but the fact that he could put himself in that predicament concerns me.Obama's plan to tax those who make more than $250,000 sounds like a noble idea, but I find fault in the principle of it. Follow me on this example. Say Mark Mangino goes to his quarterback Todd Reesing and tells him that if his passing efficiency is over 60 percent, he needs to sit out and let the back-up quarterbacks play because it's not fair for him to be so efficient. Life is not fair, and to make it fair is ridiculous. How many of you who have kids teach them not to aspire to be the best they can be because in doing so they might be better off than their friends or that they cannot do better than others because it's not fair? And if they do, they should be penalized and/or share their success with the classmates who don't do so well. That's what Obama's tax plan means to me. Imagine if Bill Gates decides that he wants to shut down his company, Microsoft. That would truly create a worldwide recession and a major technological setback, but yet Obama's tax policy says it's wrong that Microsoft makes too much money and needs to spread the wealth. What right does Obama or anyone have to punish those who are successful? Many immigrants still come to this country because this is the only country that rewards hard work and provides opportunity to become wealthy. If we start to punish that behavior, then the so-called "American Dream" will cease to exist and there would be no incentive for someone to work hard and become successful. Why work hard when the government will take it from someone else and give it to him or her?The action of a good friend of mine directly influenced my last criterion. He was looking for a CFO for the company that he works for, and after one of his interviews with a potential candidate I asked him if that person was qualified for the job. Mind you, this was a high-level, high-paying position for a major U.S. corporation. My friend told me that while he was qualified, he didn't have enough experience to assume this position. Enough experience, not without experience. Why should I "hire" someone to run this country without enough experience if major corporations won't hire someone to run theirs? Based on those three things, I'm going to vote for McCain, as I believe he is the best candidate for the job of president of my country, the United States of America.

Comments

ilovelucy 6 years, 6 months ago

It is obvious that you had your mind made up from the first time you blogged. Enough said.

ilovelucy 6 years, 6 months ago

Paul: He IS decisive enough. Give me a frickin break. You've been watching too much Fox news.While you're at it, why not bring up McCain's running mate? It seems to be that you've been pretty silent on that issue since you began your blog.Yes, she's perky and mavericky. But anyone that thinks she's capable of stepping in for McCain really must have screws (or something) loose.Sorry, using the term "argue" earlier was wrong. Maybe I should say that it is impossible to sway your opinion? You betcha :-)

Bubarubu 6 years, 6 months ago

"Say Mark Mangino goes to his quarterback Todd Reesing and tells him that if his passing efficiency is over 60 percent, he needs to sit out and let the back-up quarterbacks play because it's not fair for him to be so efficient. Life is not fair, and to make it fair is ridiculous."This analogy would only work if the accumulation of wealth were a competition or if Obama's plan gave the CEO's salary to the janitor. A better analogy would be if Reesing and the rest of the starters were allowed to eat anything and everything he wanted at the training table with no concern for whether or not the second string were getting enough to stay in playing condition. The starters don't need all of the food and it behooves the team to ensure that everyone is fed, so you tell the starters that they have to leave some of what they've been taking to make sure the whole team is healthy. The starters will still get more than enough, but now everyone gets some.There's a pretty stark difference between "fair" and "equal." Obama's tax plan doesn't make anything equal, it doesn't take someone making $25,000 and give them enough so that they can buy the BMW that someone making $250,000 can. It also doesn't take the BMW away from the person making $250,000. What Obama's tax plan does is cut taxes for those people who need it and raise taxes on those who can afford it. That's not equal, it's never going to be, but it is fair. Fair means I have a better chance of getting to a minimum standard of living. Fair means I have enough to provide for myself and my family. Taxes aren't a punishment, they're the dues we pay to enjoy the freedoms that a collective effort affords us and protects.I'll do one more. The tax increase on those making more than $250,000, do you think anyone in that tax bracket will lose their home, health care, or material possessions as a result of their tax increase? Of course not. For those making less than $40,000, their tax break could be the difference between making their mortgage payment or not, paying their insurance premium or not, having enough medicine or not. That's neither fair nor equal.

bookemdano 6 years, 6 months ago

Paul,It's called a progressive income tax, and has been the rule of law in this country for almost a hundred years--through more than fifteen different presidential administrations. Both candidates for the 44th POTUS plan to continue it. So your idealistic objections against "shar[ing] success" ought to apply to both candidates. If you prefer a flat tax you might want to vote for Bob Barr or write in Mike Huckabee on your ballot. Both John McCain and Barack Obama believe the rich should pay more taxes than the poor and the (rapidly diminishing) middle class. The difference? 4.6%What Obama wants to do is roll back the tax cuts on the top income tax bracket that Bush put in place (and McCain steadfastly opposed) back in 2001 and return their rate from 35% back to 39.6%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. Can any of us say those years were not prosperous ones for this country? If life under Bill Clinton was socialist then I for one welcome our socialist overlords. At the least, it can't be any worse than what the republicans have done to this country over the past eight years.And Bush's tax cuts don't expire for another two years (January 1, 2011) so this doom and gloom about taxation during a recession just sounds irrational to me. This election is not about ideology--it's about pragmatism. Something must be done to get this nation out of the immense hole it finds itself in. Now more than ever we need someone who is calm, intelligent, energetic, and practical. I see those qualities in Obama much more so than I see them in McCain.And the thought of Sarah Palin (who McCain's own people describe as lacking even basic knowledge about the world and how it works) becoming president in a time of crisis (McCain is asassinated or dies in office) should give anyone pause before voting for that ticket.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

logicsound04 - "Why shouldn't it? At least, to a degree:" Because when I came to this country and became a citizen, no where in the oath that I took it mentioned that it was goverement's responsiblity to manage my wealth. I took an oath to defend this country with my life, nothing in the oath promised me that the goverment will make sure that I will make ends meet.

gogoplata 6 years, 6 months ago

We don't need a president who will "run the country". That kind of thinking is the problem. We need a president who will get the government out of the way so the country can run.

LiberalDude 6 years, 6 months ago

Paul- With the way you think and base your vote you deserve George Bush/John McCain and their disasterous economic policies. Trickle down economics doesn't work for anyone except the rich. I just hope that the majority of people out there don't think like you.

jonas_opines 6 years, 6 months ago

Well, I respect your bravery in putting your head on the block, Paul. Good luck.

Bubarubu 6 years, 6 months ago

"Okay, enough about taxes. That is only one of my issues. How about the one I feel is most important to me. What if my family or any American is stranded overseas while on vacation or on a business trip and tension mounts or war breaks out, is Obama decisive enough to send a rescue mission or will he have to consult his advisors and have a discussion with the perpetrators first?"Stop being mean to Paul everyone, I mean, he just wants to vote without having a reasoned approach to doing so and without having to defend his decision...

sdinges 6 years, 6 months ago

cds is right - the president doesn't have the power to do anything alone. But Bush has shown us what we should fear. A president with bad (or just ill-planned) ideas, and a super majority willing to rubber stamp those ideas. And a president who is willing to interfere with congress by veto'ing any bill he disagrees with. I would argue that the rubber stamp super majority is the worst of it, because it can turn fairly good ideas into bad ones just by pushing them through without thoroughly analyzing them and planning for them.---As for the Obama sliding tax plan - it has changed. The bar for being "rich" was much lower back when he was running against Clinton. It has slowly climbed since he won the nomination. At it's lowest, I think tax hikes were starting at 97k joint in the form of higher social security taxes, and his proposed capital gains increase was much higher (it's gone down some 10-15 percent). You may be correct regarding the straight up income tax brackets, Bookemdano, I don't recall off hand, but most people who pay taxes are also affected by cap gains and social security taxes.

Bubarubu 6 years, 6 months ago

"Have you ever been to an all-you-can eat-buffet and left hungry? Did you hear about how much Michael Phelps ate at the Olympics? Yet, no athlete went hungry. America is a land of opportunities, if someone wants to make money, they have several avenues, reality TV shows, 15 mins of fame, hard work, start a business, etc. So, your premise does not work of the KU team not eating it all does not work because there is plenty of food for everyone, but there is limited playing time in a game."If the supply is infinite, then taking from the rich doesn't hurt them because they can just go get more as well. And your proposed solution to poverty is reality shows and starting businesses. Let's just dispense with the first out of hand, OK? Few people get on, fewer still succeed, and they don't represent sustainable and productive careers.As for starting a business, you need money. If you don't have it already, you need to get a loan. If you haven't heard, that kind of tough right now. It's even tougher if you don't have management experience or if your credit score is low. The idea that anyone can just try harder and then they'll be able to get a loan, start a small business, and then win at life is the most patronizing myth of capitalism. Yes,entrepreneurship is good and should be encouraged, but small businesses fail every day. Starting a business is the path to incredibly tough work in which one's personal investment personalizes losses, both in the financial and emotional senses. To tell the poor, "Well, just start your own business and all your problems will be solved" is foolish.Finally, I'll say that I'm fortunate enough that, in my life, I have never been without adequate financial resources. When I was a student, I relied on my parents who had more than enough. I've never been rich, but I've never been poor. When you ask me if I've ever been to an all-you-can-eat-buffet and ever left hungry, the question is premised on me being able to get into the buffet. Finding the $10 for a buffet has never been a problem for me. To assume that it has never been a problem for anyone else, or that those people just need to work harder, or that those people don't matter, is shortsighted at best.

ilovelucy 6 years, 6 months ago

All: give up in trying to rationalize with Paul. His mind was made up before he began writing this blog. You won't change it. He wants to focus on the opportunities in America and how it can benefit him. Start thinking about focusing your energies to helping with the last push of this campaign and get the right man elected. Obama/Biden 2008.

mom_of_three 6 years, 6 months ago

for someone to qualify for unemployment, you are supposed to be looking for a job and have to provide proof of a job search. I don't think you would qualify for unemployment to write a book.

mom_of_three 6 years, 6 months ago

And I know they won't give you social security to write a book? And just because the needy can access those things doesn't mean they are well enough off, either, or that they have to time to start a business or write a book. And if you get a job, you usually lose some or all of the food stamps, and you will lose unemployment, granted you can find a job good enough to survive. You are right ilovelucy - it isn't worth it to argue with him.

Kyle Reed 6 years, 6 months ago

"it isn't worth it to argue with him"It would appear that he isn't trying to argue. He seems more interested in offering up his opinions for debate. Why must it become an argument all the time?Oh and kudos to Garath for being the only person (so far) to resort to name calling. Really, bravo.

Gareth Skarka 6 years, 6 months ago

pault: "Heard of J.R Rowling? Last I heard she was homeless before Harry Potter. Did the British tax policy get her to where she is? "First, it's J.K., not J.R.Second, yes, you dumbass -- It was the British tax policy that got her where she is. She wrote the first Harry Potter book while living on a Grant from the Scottish Arts Council....which is funded by....(can you guess?).....(wait for it....).....UK Taxes! Can you wingnuts ever try to communicate your positions without looking like complete idiots?

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

Gareth - Thanks for correcting my mistake on the name. So, she wrote the book living on a grant funded by UK Taxes, don't we already have tax-funded programs that the needy can access called...wait for it..... unemployment? How about food stamps, social security. Medicate, etc. If J.K. Rowling was in US, she could have wrote Harry Potter while collecting unemployment and living on food stamps. So could anyone who wants to give it a try. Sorry that you missed my point that I was referring to future tax increases.

Confrontation 6 years, 6 months ago

Good job, Paul. You just showed us why we've had an idiot frat boy in charge of the country for 8 years.

cds 6 years, 6 months ago

"The second issue is taxation. Both candidates have said much on this subject, but I'm not sure if either one of them will be able to pull off what they promised. "Sighs When will people understand, the president does not have the power to just take office and make sweeping changes to every law, and line in the constitution? A plan is a plan, it does not mean it's going to happen. So your right, no ones sure if they will be able to pull off what they promised. Just an example, the elder Bush who ran a platform claiming "No New Taxes!!", well some of us remember what happened later.I really wish people would understand the 3 branches of the system and how they work together instead of focusing on a party's plan that may or may not happen.

bookemdano 6 years, 6 months ago

BigDog:It never slid. $200K and under gets a tax cut. Those making between 200K and 250K tax rate stays the same. 250K and above see 4.6% higher taxes on the amount that is over 250K. That is what Obama has said since the beginning.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

Thanks for those who have posted your comments so far and for not being rude. I respect your opinions and I am choosing to respond to some of yours. Bubarubu - Your theory of feeding the team will only work if there is a limit on the supply of food. Have you ever been to an all-you-can eat-buffet and left hungry? Did you hear about how much Michael Phelps ate at the Olympics? Yet, no athlete went hungry. America is a land of opportunities, if someone wants to make money, they have several avenues, reality TV shows, 15 mins of fame, hard work, start a business, etc. So, your premise does not work of the KU team not eating it all does not work because there is plenty of food for everyone, but there is limited playing time in a game.Bookemdano - You said, "Fair means I have a better chance of getting to a minimum standard of living." What is holding you back from attaining that? Are there things you are not able to do to get the standard of living that you want? Why should someone else make it happen for you? This is America, land of opportunities, cant you find a away to make it happen? Heard of J.R Rowling? Last I heard she was homeless before Harry Potter. Did the British tax policy get her to where she is? Why dont you go on Survivor or American Idol or do something to earn the money you need. Again, isn't America still the land of opportunities? I agree that most people who make lots of money can and should consider sharing their wealth, but shouldn't that be their choice? Why should government dictate that?

jonas_opines 6 years, 6 months ago

pault: I will try to remain respectful, but you have an extremely absurd argument, which might need to be addressed."Your theory of feeding the team will only work if there is a limit on the supply of food."There is a limit on the supply of food. That is simple, elementary economics. Though in America we have a great amount of things, there is always a limit to the supply of any resources, and that scarcity is why we have that thing called "price.""Have you ever been to an all-you-can eat-buffet and left hungry? Did you hear about how much Michael Phelps ate at the Olympics? Yet, no athlete went hungry."This is also absurd, as you are now comparing the same people. The original point, which was reaching a little in and of itself, was between two gropus, the elite and the rest. Now you're comparing within the elite. A better comparison would be if the Olympic athletes were given preference over other people in China (which, of course, they were: bilions upon billions of dollars were diverted by the government to take care of athletes, that probably came from resources that could have been useful to deal with the Chinese population (generally in the west) that still lives in extreme poverty. That has been brought up as an issue, to be sure, in several cases by posters on this forum criticizing the autocratic Chinese government."America is a land of opportunities, if someone wants to make money, they have several avenues, reality TV shows, 15 mins of fame, hard work, start a business, etc."This ignores quite a few social realities. Hard work is much easier when brought up in a social sphere that values or sees benefit in hard work, and there are defined subgroups of American people where socialization goes directly against those viewpoints,."So, your premise does not work of the KU team not eating it all does not work because there is plenty of food for everyone, but there is limited playing time in a game."Again, you were given a bad analogy to start with, but this is clearly a questionable conclusion in how it fits into reality.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

Okay, enough about taxes. That is only one of my issues. How about the one I feel is most important to me. What if my family or any American is stranded overseas while on vacation or on a business trip and tension mounts or war breaks out, is Obama decisive enough to send a rescue mission or will he have to consult his advisors and have a discussion with the perpetrators first?

BigDog 6 years, 6 months ago

But the "rich" under Obama keeps sliding ..... $250,000 to $200,000 ..... yet under the IRS statics ... the top 5% cuts off at about $140,000 ..... and in Kansas that might be a very good income ..... not the same if you also live where cost of living is much higher like New York, San Francisco, Washington DC, etcBy the way .... rolling back tax cuts .... is a tax increaseAnd why should the top 5% be excited about paying more taxes .... so taxes can be reduced for 95% (according to NObama) ..... yet there is 40% of the people in this country who don't pay federal income tax ..... guess that gives them a welfare checkThere's your redistribution of wealth plan ..... courtesy of Barack NObama

americandreamrealty 6 years, 6 months ago

"argue" as used above means "debate" or "discuss" or "attempt to persuade". consult a dictionary.

average 6 years, 6 months ago

When it comes to taxes, neither of these guys are reversing Reaganism. They're not even willing to approach Reagan. Note that the 'top marginal tax rate' was 50% during almost the entire Reagan Administration. And of course, it was 91% during FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK. The debate now is between going up to 39.6% (same as during Clinton), 35% (as it is now), or 30% (the new McCain). All much lower than during the Reagan years. But, Reaganism has set the tone for the last 25 years, and many people cannot even fathom that the top tax rates really were much higher once upon a time, and current taxes are the lowest they've been since the Depression.Of course, during the Ike years, we were also able to pay off our war debts while building dams, schools, highways, and social safety nets. We can't even afford to maintain those things now. Businesses and CEOs re-invested in their companies and their long-term success, rather than taking huge paydays (because they would have been taxed on such large payouts). CEOs in that time made 20 times a base-worker salary, not 200 or 2000. The mean income (GDP) didn't grow tremendously during that era, but the median income grew much more strongly than in our own day.

1029 6 years, 6 months ago

The ignorance and stupidity of the human race is sickening. Paul made up his mind months ago. No amount of education or increased awareness could have ever changed his mind. Like most Republicans, he came up with a conclusion and then desperately sought out and highlighted questionable "evidence" to support his conclusion. This is the classic difference between liberals and conservatives--liberals build a conclusion based on evidence and conservatives build evidence based on a conclusion.By the way, Bill Gates is a very intelligent and aware businessman and is perfectly okay with Obama's tax plan. That was a bad example for Paul to use. He should have found a greedy society-hating wealthy republican to use as an example, not a generous democrat who is continuously striving to make society better.

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

Paut says, "I just have an issue with the fact that the government can take my hard earned money in the name of being fair."Paul, how can you apply this logic? On the one had, you say you support a candidate (thus governing body and military) who will come to the aid of your family if they are in danger, and on the other you don't want to the government to take away your hard earned money. Paul, it costs money to provide this support. In fact one of the reasons why an adjustment is needed to our tax rates is due to the enourmous burden that military expenditures and the two middle east wars are causing.All due respect.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

Bubarubu - I don't have to defend my opinion or my decision on how I vote. My right to vote is my right, just as the right to free speech, etc. So I can choose to vote however informed or misinformed I am. The fact is that I am exercising my right to the best of my ability. I'm glad, however, to listen to your opinion or reasoning to convince me otherwise. Also, I hope that people don't vote solely based on one issue. Taxes are important but what good is it if I'm stranded overseas? Taxes would be the least of my concerns.

feeble 6 years, 5 months ago

Regarding the comment about presidents who have died in office:William Henry Harrison, April 4, 1841, Natural CausesZachary Taylor, July 9, 1850, Natural CausesAbraham Lincoln, April 14, 1865 AssassinatedJames A. Garfield, September 19, 1881 Assassinated July 2, 1881William McKinley, September 14, 1901 Assassinated September 6, 1901Warren Harding, August 2, 1923 Natural CausesFranklin D. Roosevelt, April 12, 1945 Natural CausesJohn F. Kennedy, November 22, 1963 Assassinatedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_who_died_in_officeSo 18% of US presidents have died in office (19% if we only count Grover Cleveland once).

americandreamrealty 6 years, 6 months ago

Akreed (Anonymous) says: "it isn't worth it to argue with him"It would appear that he isn't trying to argue. He seems more interested in offering up his opinions for debate. Why must it become an argument all the time?_____ignorance. "argument" is a term used to describe a debate. your conotation of the word "argue" as negative is caused by pure ignorance.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

ilovelucy - Believe it or not, I have NEVER watched Fox News. Not even once. I have heard that they tend to lean more to the conservative point of view. As for Sarah Palin, she is a non-issue for me. I don't want to vote on "what if's" We cant plan our lives on what we think will happen in the future. Remember the Y2K scare? Who knows if McCain will live for the next 4 years, or Obama for that matter? To make my decision based on if Sarah Palin will make a good president is like preparing for the Y2K scare.

Kyle Reed 6 years, 6 months ago

I think it's pretty apparent to everyone why you used it.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound04:Foreign affairs:So every person who has had photo-ops with a handful of foreign leaders, got a degree in International Relations and has lived outside of the U.S. has the necessary experience to be POTUS? You set the bar extremely low for what experience is necessary to be POTUS. I wonder if Obama will pass the foreign crisis test that Biden keeps talking about. I personally don't prefer to make such a large gamble with the country's security."Same question for John McCain." ls04Do you seriously question McCain's experience (not judgment) on foreign affairs?

beatrice 6 years, 5 months ago

Sati: "If Obama wins this election it is because he bought the election (and will have to "payback" all those campaign contributors)." So the American people can only vote one way or another because they saw an ad? Please. If that were the case, wouldn't Mitt Romney be the GOP candidate since he outspent McCain in the primary? I actually agree that Obama will "payback" contributors -- since the average gift to the campaign is $86 per person, and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the limits on what a single person can give to a campaign (unlike the unlimited amounts that can be given to the Party, which is where the GOP have long had the commanding lead), Obama will give tax breaks to the middle class, the very people who are primarily funding his campaign. All the other stuff -- it is too much to bother with. He said, she said, I said, you said -- backandforth. I'm voting Obama because I believe he is the best choice and has the potential of being a great president, and you are voting for McCain because he isn't Obama. In all of this, who is really saying McCain is the greatest person to be President? Nobody. People are just saying he isn't Obama. That is why he will likely lose big on Tuesday.

Kyle Reed 6 years, 6 months ago

My conotation of argument is exactly what happens in these forums. Your lack of understanding that would seem to be ignorance on your part. Thanks for playing.

crimsonlaugh 6 years, 6 months ago

My vantage point:I don't think getting taxed more would prevent me from striving to earn more. Being taxed more can be considered the payback for the opportunities that allowed you to work your way into the position of earning that much money. If EVERYONE had the same opportunities, things would be much different in this country. And here I thought most people disliked Mircrosoft's monopoly on PC software. And how is this different from the oil companies making all their money by jacking up the gas prices? Yet, no one seems to be content with that and you're defending Microsoft and its earnings?Basically, my disagreement with all these points is your reasoning. I certainly believe "experience" HAS to play into being qualified. Qualified, but not experienced is contradicting. A lot of Obama's donations came from a record number of people donating to his campaign. Specifically, people who could only afford to give $10, or maybe even $100. So his stakeholders if he were to win office would be his donors, the American people. What an idea!

camper 6 years, 6 months ago

Well PaulT, you seem like a good guy and you raise good points. But I gotta disagree with you on the tax point. It is true that hard work sometimes leads to wealth, but you also must need other factors like a good start and upbringing, and when you do get to the point of joining the working world, you also need a liitle bit of luck, good fortune and talent (sometimes god-given). You might also be in a noble profession, are the best at what you do, and still will never become wealthy. And not everybody can, nor should they want to be a high stakes financer, lawyer CEO, or well you get the point. As far as spreading the wealth goes, I calculated the #'s and Joe the plumber would be taxed an additional 900 bucks if he cleared $280,000 (after deducting all of his business expenses). To me this should not inhibit small business, nor do I think it unfair. I agree we may be taxed highly, but until the government can figure out a way cut expenditures we have to figure out a fair way to allocate tax collection. Adjusting the rates as Obama proposes, is not a severe transfer of wealth (or the dreaded but often misunderstood word Socialism). Oh well, I can agree to disagree with you on this one.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Bubarubu - I'm not so sure if I can accept the premise of a non-responsible vote. If someone votes against Obama because of his race, he is simply exercising his right to voice his opinion, no matter how idiotic he might be, In all the efforts that I have seen during an election to get people out to vote, I've only seen people being asked to go out and vote because its their duty. Never have I seen where one is asked to vote responsibly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any such an initiative. What I meant by people who vehemently want to make their opinions count are people like 1029 and others who name call and post rude comments because I don't agree with their view point. I'm totally fine with you having an opinion that's different from mine and feel that my opinion is wrong. But I what I don't get is if you get angered and bothered and feel that I'm stupid and ignorant because I don't agree with your views.

Kyle Reed 6 years, 6 months ago

Furthermore the point of a debate isn't to change the other persons mind. So I can hardly see where your limited definition would apply. If anything, the intention to change his mind lend to an argument in the sense that I was using the word.

Jonathan Kealing 6 years, 6 months ago

jonas, et alWe took the post down because, yes, it is another attempt by a poster to try and convince people voting will take place on two different days. We've got a zero tolerance policy for comments and reader blogs like that.Jonathan KealongOnline editor

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 6 months ago

Thanks Jonas.And Paul, welcome to the U.S.A. Congratulations on your citizenship. It is unfortunate though that McCain's economic policies, his foreign policy and so much more will likely make it more difficult for people like yourself to join our melting pot. I'm sure you know how costly it is to get to/stay in America. I know from having gone through the process myself that it's quite difficult to raise thousands of dollars to apply for a green card when you're not allowed to work legally. Say the economy of your home country sucks because big American corporations have exploited free trade/destroyed your land's resources/etc. Then say the green card/work visa/etc. quota is based on the American economy (as proposed by McCain). More want to come, less are able to come, more come illegally, work illegally, then McCain fines those companies who let them work illegally, then sends illegals home. Nowhere in that process does anyone's problem get solved. With McCain's stance on giving tax breaks to corporations who send jobs overseas (to exploit workers in less-privileged countries) and his stance on unregulated free trade (which again exploits the poor of other countries), I find it hard to believe that either our economic condition or that of the countries who frequently contain people who want to immigrate here will improve. Poor economy is one of the most driving, if not THE most driving reason people want to come to America. They want a better life here. I doubt McCain can build a wall high enough to curb illegal immigration - which is his first priority when it comes to the issue. With the economic downturn of the world, many more will have a need/desire to join your ranks, and many less will be able to do so. I truly hope you enjoy what will be denied to so many others.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

crimsonlaugh - Great vantage point. Could you please tell me where you got the information about Obama's donors? I hope it's not from the media, because I've been accused to accepting information without doing some real research. I assume you can provide me exactly the breakdown of how many people gave $10 or $20 or $100, right? Since you obliviously did the research.

meggers 6 years, 6 months ago

Paul,There are US Embassies around the globe to assist you should adverse events occur while you are traveling abroad. Of course, if having your family stranded overseas during a time of war is one of your chief concerns, I would think you might support the candidate that is least likely to preemptively begin a war. Just a hint....that probably wouldn't be the candidate that sang Bomb, Bomb Iran at the same time our soldiers were being bombed mercilessly in Iraq.

beatrice 6 years, 6 months ago

Well, Paul, you fell for the lies being spun. Remember, the taxation of the 5% who make more than $250,000 is to stop the massive tax cuts that had been provided to the wealthiest of the wealthy by Bush, made during a time of war and a growing national debt. This was a tax cut that McCain initially claimed was reckless and dangerous, although he now supports it. Remember, trickle down economics, of giving the tax breaks to the wealthy in the hopes that they will give more to those who need it, hasn't and doesn't work. The average donation to Obama's campaign has been $86. That means that he raised the money through many people giving, not just a few, which isn't allowed in the first place. How exactly is he going to give back, except for giving many a tax break, rather than the few. Spending more years in the Senate would not have convinced Obama to select someone like Sarah Palin as his running mate. That is what McCain's experience gets you.However, you have made the decision and you are voting in a state that will certainly go red anyway, so go for it. I'll be in another likely red state, although it is getting very close in Arizona, and I'll be voting for the person I hope wins -- Obama. He is a leader, and he has the intelligence I am looking for. The fact that so many are saying the most vile lies tells you how scared the neo-cons are, because they know there time is coming to a close. Yippee!!!!

beatrice 6 years, 5 months ago

Sati, thanks for pointing out that the only thing going for McCain is to inspire fear about Obama. Regarding experience and foreign relations, please remember that after 9/11, despite many years of experience in Congress, Senator McCain almost immediately called for attacking Iraq, months before President Bush. When there was a homegrown anthrax attack, McCain began to point his finger at Iraq. When the tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthy were introduced, McCain was strongly against them. Obama now wants to roll those tax cuts back, and McCain is in the corner with Bush, calling it a redistribution of wealth. I appreciate that Obama is not in favor of giving the wealthy all the money and waiting for it to trickle down, because time has proven that trickle down economics does not work. I know that I would much rather have intelligence over enormous amounts of experience. Obama has the intelligence, leadership, and enough experience to get us through these difficult times.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

sdinges - I'm not sure of the details of The Lebanon hostage crisis back in the eighties, but I'm sure that the American embassy was not capable of intervening in that situation and it was up to the President at that time. Unfortunately, my country of origin does not recognize dual citizenship. So once I became an American citizen, I'm a nobody in their eyes.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

While driving today I happened to I listened to 5 minutes of Rush Limbaugh (ok, don't even go there. I said 5 minutes) and he played 3 sound bites, 2 of Obama and one of Governor Richards regarding the tax plan. On one sound bite Obama said $250K for the tax plan and on the next sound bite, he said $200K. Gov. Richards said that Obama's tax plan will not affect those who make $120K or less. Mind you, these were actual sound bites and not commentary from Limbaugh or someone else. So, Obama, what is the real amount?Obama's plan to not increase taxes on the middle class is akin to Bush Sr.'s "no new taxes" promise. At least Bush waited till he got in office to go back on his word. Obama is already waffling Also, have you all heard that Obama kicked off 3 reporters from hic campaign trail because their paper endorsed McCain? Great example of tolerance and reaching across party lines! Finally, did you hear about Obama's aunt living in the slums of Boston? http://wbztv.com/local/obama.aunt.boston.2.852450.html?loc=interstitialskipObama once said that the major "fault" of America was not helping the "least of them." Why doesn't he help his aunt? Cant his wife give up some of her high earning salary to provide his aunt with better quality of living? If he can't reach out to his own family, how is he going to help the middle class?

meggers 6 years, 6 months ago

p>Paul,opensecrets.org is a pretty comprehensive, non-partisan source for campaign finance information.And I agree that war isn't always avoidable, but in the case of the war McCain strongly supported and continues to support at all costs, it most certainly was.

Bubarubu 6 years, 5 months ago

Three issues, fine. First would be health care. Obama has a plan that will extend coverage to more people and do so with most efficiency than the current system of government subsidized coverage. McCain's plan, on the other hand, would tax employer-provided health benefits (meaning they would likely disappear for a lot of people) and his proposed individual tax credit would not cover insurance premiums for many people.Second, diplomacy. Obama is calm and collected and wants to renew diplomacy as the first tool we use rather than threatening action from our overstretched military. Specifically in re: Iraq, Obama wants to get us out in cooperation with the Iraqi government. McCain's plan for Iraq includes an indefinite "bolstering of our military posture" in order to threaten Syria and Iran. He has no outline for increased or improved diplomacy. He is unpredictable and hostile, and both are dangerous. As far as your concerns about being trapped in a foreign country, I would much rather Obama work to reduce hostility (and thus reduce the probability of your scenario) and maintain good relations with foreign countries so that they can assist with or take the lead on any rescue operation (which would be faster and likely less destructive).My most general argument is that Obama: Bush :: Reagan: Carter. We're nearing the end of a failed presidency that has emboldened our enemies, damaged our influence and standing the world over, and crippled our economy, much like we were in 1980. Reagan won that year because he could articulate a vision of a better America. He could reconstitute the American people into a dynamic and energetic audience. That's what we need now. Obama is the guy who can do that, who has a vision and can communicate it in a way that matters. McCain has no vision and if he did, he couldn't communicate it. His campaign seems to have no purpose than to win, his VP pick was a blatant ideological pander, and he has reversed course on so many things, I simply don't trust him to affect policy change.You could pick a bunch of other issues like education (merit pay for teachers), taxes (we've discussed), ethics (transparency), and reproductive rights, I've just named three. Eight years ago, I wanted to vote for McCain. Ten months ago, I was skeptical about Obama. On Tuesday, I'll demonstrate that both of those things have changed dramatically.Incidentally, none of this changes the fact that you chose to put your rationale for McCain out and are either unwilling or unable to defend it. You don't have to, but once you put it out in public, you don't get to whine about people attacking it.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

I like you idea of giving tax-exempt for R & D. That's providing incentive for the company, not penalizing it. What are your thoughts about offshore drilling? I'm happy for your faith in Obama because if the polls are right, he will be the next President and he would have to repay the faith that the people like you have placed in him.

sdinges 6 years, 6 months ago

Paul, I am also an immigrant and a recent citizen. If we are stranded in another country, we have a significant advantage over the average person. First, as citizens of the United States, our embassies will go to great lengths to get us out of that country (or in the case of being accused of a crime, the embassy will advocate for you). In fact, the U.S. has a reputation for having embassies which are very active on behalf of their citizens (which is why I always have to raise an eyebrow when I hear someone talk about renouncing their citizenship).What's more, although it depends on your country of origin - there's a good chance that your former country still considers you a citizen (that part of the oath is essentially non-binding since it does not require you to go to a consulate and renounce your other citizenship, and the country in question gets to decide whether or not you're a citizen, not you or the U.S. government). That means, that you have the option of having -two- embassies trying to help you out of your pickle in a foreign country.The person who is the president of the United States has no real impact on whether or not you as an individual citizen will get help in a foreign country. The best thing you can do is write down the address and telephone number of those two embassies and contact them. The good news for you is that if the U.S. embassy is compromised in some way, you have another option.

jonas_opines 6 years, 6 months ago

1029, move back to the satire. You're very good at that, and this post, not so much. pault: I warned you.

Ronda Miller 6 years, 5 months ago

Paul, I am not going to attempt to join the discussion at this point and time. It would be too lenghty of a process for me to add my comments alongside the others. I do want to say that I hope the experience of blogging on the whole has been a positive one for you. I have certainly enjoyed reading your blogs.I hope that you have gained some of the same insights about people that I have. We have a wonderfully intelligent group of to interact with and most of them are thoughtful and caring.Continue to blog! You do a great job....

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

logicsound04 - How about the flaws in your reasoning? Like your belief that who you elect for president will have much or any bearing on the predicament of a U.S. in a time of war. Any evidence that Obama has a track record of doing a good job?Or your conclusion that raising a large amount of money is NOT enough of a reason to suspect a candidate of "owing favors. You really belief politics is that squeaky clean?Or your unsupported assertions that a slightly higher tax rate will force businesses make everyone's live fair and equal? Do you have any evidence of raising taxes creating an environment for people to go out and spend more and thus cause the economy to grow?Like you asked of me, can you give 1 example of each of the issues above? All of this assertions and beliefs are just that, beliefs. You and I choose to belief in different ideology and candidates. Why can't you accept that? It's not a crime for me or you to have flawed beliefs, after all, we all flawed human beings.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Camper - I guess if I was making $280K a year, I wont have much to complain either. Also, I agree hard work alone doesn't guarantee good fortune. Look at Kevin Ferdeline! I just have an issue with the fact that the government can take my hard earned money in the name of being fair. I think you know life is not fair and nothing anyone can do to change that. But I have no qualms with your views. bookemdano - First off I didn't say that McCain would rescue me & Obama wouldn't. I said that I think McCain is more experienced to handle war and rumors of war. Remember the TV show "Who wants to be a Millionaire?" Each contestant had three lifelines, right? Say you are going to war torn zone for humanitarian efforts and you have two "lifelines" to choose. Person A is a decorated war veteran with immense experience fighting wars. Person B has no combat or military experience. You get to choose one of them as your bodyguard. Would you really even consider person B? That's why I think McCain would be more decisive and apt to help Americans in a hostile situation. As for McCain's health, there is a thing called statistics. How many Presidents have died while in office? Please don't include "Dave." Not to say it won't happen, but statistics tell me Sarah Palin's chances of being President during McCain's term are at best slim.

mom_of_three 6 years, 6 months ago

but there is a difference between making a living, and making wealth. Don't all Americans want to make a living, and some have a harder time than others? and not everyone has the means to make wealth. We all work hard and find ways to be successful, and some have better luck and breaks than others, but it doesn't mean we all don't work hard. And "so-called poor" - there is poor in this country, who work hard, that make $8 or $9 an hour, with two kids, because unfortunate circumstances put them there, be it divorce, death, or health. And the economy is rough, which cuts their hours, and cuts their money, and there is poor people in this country. These people need to be able to survive and might need help doing it, until their circumstances and the economy can change.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

rachaelisacancer - Glad you made it through the process. However, I'm not sure why it cost you thousands of dollars. It cost me $350 for the entire process. I do know that if someone is here illegally that they have to pay lawyers, middle man, etc to get a green card or citizenship. The topic of illegal immigrants is another can of worms that I don't want to open. But my point is that most people want to come to America to make a better life and when they get here, they don't wait for tax breaks or handouts to make a living. They work hard and find ways to be successful. It's too bad that that many think that by the government taxing the rich, the so-called poor will have a better life. Again, kudos doing what you needed to do to make a better life for yourself.Meggers- I agree prevention is the best policy, but if it was that easy, then we would not have had the Holocaust, or Pearl Harbor or any war for that matter. I'm sure either candidate will do what they can to help stranded American. I just happen to believe that McCain is more experienced to handle war times. It's just my opinion.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

bennyoates - That is the beauty of this election. You get to vote for who you want without having to defend it. The fact that we are exercising our right to vote, makes us responsible citizens. Unfortunately, some people feel the need to vehemently make their opinions count. Unfortunately, that is just want it is, an opinion and anyone who cannot live with another person's opinion, is truly the one who is shortsighted.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

ilogicsound04 - You fail to read my point. I'm not postulating a theory, but a belief.And again, if you missed in on my last post, all of this assertions and beliefs are just that, beliefs. You and I choose to belief in different ideology and candidates. Why can't you just accept that? It's not a crime for me or you to have flawed beliefs, after all, we all flawed human beings.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound04:I regret your decision to stoop to personal attacks. While I disagree with you I would not make claims that you a shill for the unthinking left. I have often stated I am a fiscal conservative and I take no shame in saying so. Although some would label me as a social moderate."You take the most positive spin possible on every point related to McCain and take the most negative approach possible on every point related to Obama." LS04Are you calling me the opposite of the main stream media?You so readily point out my bias but do not see your own. The difference is I realize my bias. When I am making arguments advocating for or against something that is what I do. That doesn't mean I can't see things objectively as well."I hope, for your own sanity, you can move on and take an open-minded approach to Obama's time as President" LS04Have you been just as concerned about the sanity of liberals for the last 8 years who have demonized Bush? Remember, if Obama is elected, you reap what you sow.

rachaelisacancer 6 years, 5 months ago

Paul -Just so you know - you're really one of the lucky ones. Application to adjust status: $1010. Petition for alien relative: $355. Medical Exam: $200+ Then add the attorney's fees. Those aren't even the figures of an "illegal" immigrant, so just imagine what it must be like for one who is. I hope some of the posters here have led you to reconsider your reasoning, if not your vote. Obama is not some Robin Hood. He's a fiscally responsible individual working to restore America's infrastructure and economic status - not "make it fair" for the poor. Trust a poor person when they say they're fully aware of the fact that life's not fair. Perhaps the fact that you didn't grow up in America makes you unaware of the many, many disadvantages people have due to a history of disproportionate treatment among citizens. Not everyone has the ability to just "work hard" or pull themselves up by the bootstraps, as they say. Economic and social disadvantages affect lifestyle, education and health - all of which can adversely affect an individual's ability to prosper no matter how hard they work. To tell a single mother (who's single because she was, let's say, offered abstinence-only education about sex ((like Palin wants)) and ended up pregnant and alone) who's working two full time jobs and still not able to afford a car or decent child care that she just needs to "work harder" is cruel, to say the least. And come on, the notion that anyone can just get on a reality tv show and win big money is silly. Just silly.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Beatrice:Are you denying the influence and role money has in politics and elections? Because in the last two election, every time I heard a story about Bush they talked about his monetary advantage. Odd that it is so rarely talked about in the main stream media when a Dem has the advantage."If that were the case, wouldn't Mitt Romney be the GOP candidate since he outspent McCain in the primary?" beatriceI don't think Romney outspent McCain 3 to 1. Also the media didn't like Romney so every time he ran a comparative ad they attacked him for going negative (like they are doing to McCain now, but ignore the fact Obama has spent far more on negative ads). Lastly Romney didn't win the nomination because he is Mormon, and polls show far more people wouldn't vote for a Mormon than an African-American.":since the average gift to the campaign is $86 per person," beatriceAre you seriously going to use this half-truth (ignores the large donors) to defend Obama's flip-flop? The individual limit is much more than $86 and Obama has many large donors? Do you need a list? If McCain was getting more money from the exact same sources and Obama had accepted public financing most liberals would claim McCain was all about big greedy corporation while Obama cares about the little guy. Obama has raised over $600 million, much of it from large contributors and special interests. Once in office he will be in their pocket. If he accepted public financing he would still be taking the people's money as you claim and be in a position to give tax cuts, but wouldn't be beholden to special interests. The only reason he rejected public funding was because he is greedy. (Also, do you seriously believe he isn't going to raise taxes on those making less than $250k? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I am willing to sell you : )"All the other stuff - it is too much to bother with. He said, she said, I said, you said - backandforth." beatricei.e. I can't make an argument why Obama would be a good President and I am holding onto a mirage."and you are voting for McCain because he isn't Obama." beatriceAt this point I haven't decided if I am voting for McCain, but I did decide to vote for McCain I would have many good reasons. (And the lesser of two evils is on good reason).

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Doh!: "...but (if) I did decide to vote for McCain I would have many good reasons."

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

1029 - It's apparent that you have very leftist point of view and "No amount of education or increased awareness could ever change your mind". You are entitled to that view, and just because I don't share that view, doesn't mean that I'm ignorant and stupid, because that would also make you ignorant and stupid to some of us. I do have to add that almost all your previous post has been laced with a tone of hatred and anger. Maybe someday you will learn to be tolerant of other people's view, not matter what they are. As far as Bill Gates goes, my point is that his company provides jobs and livelihood for thousands of people but most people like you only care that he should be taxed more instead of considering what he has done for the people who work for him. Also, he gives millions of dollars to charity at his own accord. But Obama thinks that he should pay more simply because he is rich. Well 1029, I hope that you teach your kids and family member never to aspire to become the best that they can be, because in doing so, others might not have the same opportunity and its just not fair.

jonas_opines 6 years, 6 months ago

Okay, this is off topic for another thread. The page got pulled and all we have is a title, but did Big Prune attempt to subvert the democratic process by lying about the day that democrats are supposed to vote? The title and the removal of the blog lead me to that premise, but I didn't see the page itself.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound04:Redistribution of wealth:Obama's plan is to only increase taxes on those making over $250k (Which if you look at his spending proposals will be one of the first promises he breaks, but he will probably blame in on the Dem controlled congress). He takes money away from those who work hard and create jobs and gives the money to individuals who don't pay any taxes. The top 10% pay about 60% of the income taxes, while the bottom 40% don't pay anything. This is a transfer of wealth plain and simple. This is completely different than, as currently setup and as McCain wouldn't change, the Federal Tax Code taxes individuals with a higher income a greater percentage. Tax breaks, or giving individuals back more of their own money is completely different than giving people someone else's money.Corporate subsidies are about protecting jobs, offsetting tariffs by foreign countries, and encouraging development in certain sectors. The purpose is not to give corporate welfare.Do you really think taking incentives away from hard work, and punishing employers is good for the economy? Is giving hand-outs going to solve anything or is it just throwing money at a problem hoping some our countries social problems go away?

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Correction: "Do-as-(I)-say-not-as-I-do is a typical liberal motto."

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound04:The Economy:First, I fully expect Obama to increase the role of government into free markets. He will do so, like the bailout plan, in claims the market has failed and your protector government will swoop in to save the day. This will occur in multiple sectors if Obama is elected. Second, it is naÃive to believe the President doesn't play a role on the economy. This is evidenced by the huge bailout plan pushed by Bush. But how about I re-word the question so you don't avoid it this time; What experience does Obama have on the economy?McCain has 30 years in the Senate and understand free markets, laissez faire economics, and the invisible hand. He understands how too much regulation can suffocate new companies, but some regulation to grease the wheels of capitalism is necessary, like when he sought greater transparency of Freedie and Fannie (which the Dems opposed.) McCain understands there are winners and losers in free markets, but the winners win more than the losers lose. It is not a perfect system but is much more efficient than communism or socialism.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

Sigh, I must have failed at being respectful. I don't know if I can constrict myself to a specific three reasons, but I can tell you why McCain has lost my vote, and I'm not lying when I said that I was planning on voting for him.First, Sarah Palin. It was an offensive choice for VP. First, it totally neutralized the experience issue. You say you don't care about statistics, as no president has ever died in office. McCain would also be the oldest president to take office were he elected. He has a chance of keeling over anytime. The republicans spent the first 9 months of this election cycle shrieking about Obama's lack of experience, and then he picks her to be the heartbeat away. Hypocrisy. Much worse, because the only reason that can be fathomed for picking her was because she's has a vagina (and potentially because she didn't abort her Down Syndrome Baby, and has a pregnant daughter that didn't abort hers, but not even I can comfortably be that cynical), and because she's nice and objectifiable, being perfectly in line with conservative policies and being hot (which was about all the conservative bloggers could seem to talk about, other than her not aborting her down syndrome baby)Second: the suspension of his campaign (cough) for the financial crisis. He made a great scene about Obama not concerning himself with the crisis (which, frankly, to my mind has been overblown substantially as political fodder) and McCain announced a suspension of his campaign until the problem was solved (which, of course, did not include a suspension of fund-raising activities and advertising), then he showed up at the debate, and continued campaigning, despite the problem not being resolved. Hypocrisy.

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

PaulT says, "The reason I can apply the logic is because I said I have an issue with government taking money in the name of being fair." Paul, I think you are implying "in the name of being fair"...is not always fair. I don't think you would support unfair taxes. In my opinion, the government "collects" taxes to provide services that us citizens collectively use or need (ie military, infrastructure, and I will add investments that the private sector is unable to take the risk for or does not have the capital to do so....as Obama has stated...for the collective good and direction of our country). Now I'll stop my dreaming. In reality, much of the tax revenues collected do not seem to wind up in the hands of the institutions or people to use it properly. I think too many middlemen get involved and it winds up in the wrong pockets.Back to dreaming, I would think a maximum tax rate of 15-20% would provide more than enough revenue to provide for our needs as well as taking care of the elderly, the sick, and those less fortunate. Unfortunately this is not the case. So it is up to voters to decide which candidates offer the fairest tax plans and initiatives that not only benefits us, but benefits our society as a whole. After all, we all share the same tank we gotta swim in. I happen to think Obama offers the best proposal.

Mixolydian 6 years, 5 months ago

You chose right Paul, and for the right reasons. Good luck with either candidate getting tax cuts past the democrat controlled congress. Their plans, like most presidential nominees, are nothing more than "Vote for Pedro" promises...Vote for me and all your wildest dreams will come true. Particularly true when no incumbent is running, all you really have is their record of experience. Obama has slim to none, McCain has the decided edge.You're then left with character, because that determines how a person reaches a decision. Both Obama and McCain are senators and have voted on hundreds of pieces of legislation. Most arguments from those votes are decidedly slanted. There are just too many reasons to vote or not vote for a piece of legislation to get a fix on character. You have to look deeper.Obama's trail of loathsome associates gets worse everyday. We just found out that Obama's friend Bill Ayers had dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Bobby Kennedy. Defend the indefensible and there's your character. Obama talks about about compassion and helping those in need. No one can judge his heart, but what are his actions? He doesn't help his relatives who live in poverty. His running mate has only given a miserly <1% of his income in charitable giving. I trust them to care about me..about you?McCain certainly isn't the end all be all, he's just a steady calming hand on the wheel. That's what this country needs right now at this point in history.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 5 months ago

McCain never had my vote. Not a maverick; traditional political suck-up and pander.He lost any respect when he persisted to play the "terrorist" card in a context of his supporters actually calling for the death of his "terrorist" opponent.

james bush 6 years, 6 months ago

McCain/Palin should win by default this election!........Obama needs to go back to serving the welfare rights groups in the Chicago area and denied the opportunity to make this country into a nation of victim's rights organizations with the USA as their main employer. This country needs McCain to help us survive the Bush administration's legacy of poor leadership; McCain should have been the republican candidate 8 years ago but the RNC screwed conservatives by offering us Bush.Radical/liberal/democrats like the Obama&Pelosi&Reid-Team in charge is a depressing possibility and should be avoided.

mom_of_three 6 years, 6 months ago

but back to "Flaws" in arguments as logicsound mentioned.I know there are flaws in my argument for choosing who I vote for. My reasoning will not be the same as someone else's. But I suppose logic could be talking about the flaws in the information paul was arguing with. In my house, my husband and I won't talk politics. It turns into an argument, no, wait...debate...

crimsonlaugh 6 years, 6 months ago

jimincountry (Anonymous) says:This country needs McCain to help us survive the Bush administration's legacy of poor leadership; McCain should have been the republican candidate 8 years ago but the RNC screwed conservatives by offering us Bush.You should really blame the independents who thought it best to vote for the guy they would most like to have a beer with.

Bubarubu 6 years, 6 months ago

Paul, you're right, you have the right to vote however you please and for whatever reasons you please. You also have no obligation to defend those decisions or justifications, but you chose to make them public. The idea that you would put those reasons out there and then somehow claim innocence from responsibility for them is foolish. Case in point, you don't care about Palin because you don't want to vote on "what-ifs," but you are concerned about "what-if" you get stranded overseas. I'm not the first to point out the obvious and absurd contradiction, but piling on is good, clean fun.Moreover, the potential of McCain's untimely death is not the sole reason that his pick of Palin matters. Our current president, despite his executive experience in the private and public sector, proved himself to be a terrible manager. Take, for example, his handling of Abu Ghraib. Bush is not and was not personally responsible for what happened, nor was Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld, however, knew about it well before Bush did and chose not to disclose the situation to him. He sat on a violation of American and international law that would be incredibly damaging once revealed and he didn't say anything. In the aftermath, Bush kept him on for another couple of years. So much for accountability and being able to get the best from people. In the same vein, Palin is unqualified for virtually any major role in the federal government. She would be unable to use her expertise on any but one issue, and even that one would be limited. She cannot possibly be expected to surrogate for the president in front of foreign leaders, and she has shown herself to be an undisciplined lieutenant on the campaign. McCain has had one major decision to make thus far and he made a poor one. Enjoy casting your first vote for him. Hopefully, you'll get better at it for the next time.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

"The allure of living in the US is far greater than the hypocrisy that the rest of the world shows about America."You can hate the actions of the rich and still want to be rich. I don't mean to imply that most people hate America, though there are clearly a few groups that do. Many of them are simply fearful of the direction that we heading, and the actions that we are demonstrating.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Have a good weekend and a Happy Halloween everyone!

jonas_opines 6 years, 6 months ago

Mr. Keating, thank you for the response and the action, then.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Cont'd"Using campaign donations from supporters to get your message out and combat the money spent smearing your character is hardly "buying" an election." LS04Yeah, and spending millions to attack McCain. The difference is Obama turned down public financing ( which he previously praised for keeping the influence of money out of elections, and agreed to) and if elected he will be beholden to all those large donors and special interests who contributed to him. McCain accepted public financing and is only beholden to the people."federal campaign finance laws prevent him from using the money for anything other than his campaign." LS04So, he couldn't use all the 600 million on employing (for campaign purposes) the unemployed rather than spending hundreds of millions on attacks ads?"Furthermore, it's a weak argument to impune a person's support for an issue by questioning the level of their monetary support for it." LS04Yeah, I guess intentions and rhetoric is all that really matter, while actions are pointless. Do-as-you-say-not-as-I-do is a typical liberal motto."...if you care so much about getting John McCain elected, you haven't donated all your spare cash to the cause?" - LS04How is that in anyway related to the issue of whether Obama should put his money where his mouth is?" You are whining about "fear tactics" and then turning around and prophecying that Obama's policies will drive us into a recession or depression?" - LS04I am using facts and history as an indicator of future events. I thought learning from mistakes was a good thing, is it not? Based on Obama's socialist policies and history, the recession will last longer, just like with FDR and the Great Depression."Cite for me 1 piece of information that shows how OBama wants the government to purchase (nationalize) any major U.S. industries." LS04Obama wants to redistribute wealth. That is a socialist policy.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Also, most people are voting for Obama because he isn't from the same party as Bush, even though they don't know what "change" he is proposing.

james bush 6 years, 6 months ago

All the Obama plans he propounds to be for or "looking at" or whatever phrasing that helps him to "community-organize" his followers and to mesmerize his admirers..........are so much pandering to anyone and everyone who will listen to him. His radical friends from his leftist Columbia alma mater and his "spiritual advisor" Rev Wright, his black liberation religion mentor of 20 years, and the terrorist/professor Wm Ayers with his terrorist wife, who teach teachers how to be radicals in Chicago have not been investigated by the media as much as Joe the plumber. His real agenda is not anything he says.........he's the personification of a canard......a rumor meant to deceive.His associations have never been fully examined by the liberal press.

Bubarubu 6 years, 5 months ago

"You get to vote for who you want without having to defend it. The fact that we are exercising our right to vote, makes us responsible citizens. Unfortunately, some people feel the need to vehemently make their opinions count."Realizing this was not originally directed to me, and yet... Voting is a right, much like free speech and freedom of religion. The mere exercise of those rights is not responsible, no matter how protected it is. Anyone who votes against Obama because of his race or because he might be a Muslim is not responsible, though their right to do so is protected. Someone who practices an exclusive and punishing religion that demonizes nonbelievers is similarly protected but irresponsible.As for those who "vehemently make their opinions count," you are the one who put your rationale for your vote in the public sphere. Having done so, having exercised your right to free expression, I choose to exercise my same right to criticize your choices. You've made a decision that you cannot justify to other people, which wouldn't matter until you try to make that justification. Like I said before, I hope you get better at it.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Ronda - Thank you for you kind words, I have enjoyed this experience and next will I'm going to write about my experience of going to the polls and voting & the emotions that it will invoke in me.Camper- The reason I can apply the logic is because I said I have an issue with government taking money in the name of being fair. I don't have a problem paying for the infrastructure or the military via taxes.Someone had mentioned how the world looks at the US. I can say this without a shadow of a doubt, no matter how much they criticize and blame America, almost anyone in the world would jump at the chance of living in this great country. I know because I come from an Islamic country that has always criticized America and its policies, but yet, almost everyone wants to come and live here and they copy trends and lifestyles of the American people. The allure of living in the US is far greater than the hypocrisy that the rest of the world shows about America.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Logicsound04:"Well, you can waste your time guessing what might've happened if X had occurred." If you didn't see this tactic coming from a mile away then you are naÃive about politics. Biden has voted with Bush a majority of the time. Does that mean there are no differences between Biden and Bush? The devil is in the details which Obama doesnt want people to see. Are the issues the agree on minor, and the issue they disagree on significant? Bush and McCain agreed on the surge and increasing oversight of Freddie and Fannie, while Obama and Biden opposed. I will take the agreement if it is the right one. McCain and Bush disagree several significant issues, but Obama doesn't want anyone to pay attention to that, just keep using the same tactic of tying McCain to Bush. "And for the record, telling people that a person has voted a certain way is not "fearmongering" except to people who are desperate to justify their own candidate's use of the tactic." LS04So if you don't have problem with Obama using guilt by association (McCain = Bush)then you must not think McCain bringing up Rezko, or Ayers is a problem."If McCain disagrees with Bush on certain issues, the why doesn't McCain articulate that:" LS04He does, but you aren't listening when he does."Has it not occurred to you that you're doing the same thing?" - LS04I am asking questions? How is that attacking Obama? Or is it wrong to questions a candidate for POTUS or his supporter?

Bubarubu 6 years, 5 months ago

"But I what I don't get is if you get angered and bothered and feel that I'm stupid and ignorant because I don't agree with your views."My opinion of you (to the degree that it matters either to you or me) is lowered not because you disagree with me, but because you can't articulate a legitimate argument in favor of your position. Your understanding of the tax system is terribly flawed and when that was evident, you decided to jump to a hypothetical threat that you feel McCain would respond to better, but you have no actual justification for that belief. When people point that out, you fail to recognize that you made the decision to put your arguments out there. The fact that you can't engage in any way beyond making a claim and then claiming the freedom to be wrong is unfortunate.And yes, rights can be exercised in irresponsible ways, from speech to religion, from guns to voting. Irresponsibility doesn't erode those rights, but it doesn't ennoble them or those to whom they are endowed either. Keep that in mind over the next four and a half days, and then the next four years. At least you'll have the right to try harder next time.

ilovelucy 6 years, 5 months ago

Paul: thanks for admitting that you listened to 3 minutes of Rush Limbaugh. Just remember that he is the one of the most right leaning of the conservative out there. Yes, I'm sure that he used sound bytes regarding Obama and Richardson. But remember, SOUND BYTES. Did you hear the entire conversation? I'll bet not. Of course that overblown bag of hot air will edit so that the public hears exactly what he wants.Rush Limbaugh is a true bigoted p.o.s. Just remember that.I hope you enjoy your experience on Tuesday.Obama/Biden!!!

bookemdano 6 years, 6 months ago

Paul you dismiss the Palin factor by saying you don't want to factor "what-ifs" into your decision on whom to vote for. But isn't your example of being stranded with your family in a hostile nation with no rescue kind of like the mother of all what-ifs? By any stretch of the imagination that is an extremely unlikely happenstance, no matter who wins the election. Maybe you can explain to me the difference between your "what if" and the one I proposed. But any actuary will tell you that McCain stands a better chance of dying in office (due to his age and multiple bouts with cancer) than you do of living out that nightmare in a foreign country, unless traveling to dangerous lands is part of your job or something--but even then...However, even if you want to exclude the "what-if"s, here's another way to look at it. How does that pick of Palin reflect on John McCain's decision making? Selecting a VP is, as they say, the one "Presidential" decision a candidate makes before the election. Obama picked a man that holds his same views on the major issues while at the same time complements his own weaknesses. Conversely, do you see Palin as helping make up for any of McCain's perceived personal shortcomings? Also, she has some wildly divergent views from McCain on several critical issues. Do you not think that McCain could have shown his tremendous experience (and the judgement that should naturally come with it) by picking a truly exceptional, smart, moderate republican (or centrist democrat even!) who he knows well and who agrees with his positions on the issues? And not only that, given his age and health, wouldn't it have been even more critical to select someone that Americans could all agree could step into place immediately if need be? I just see the selection of VP as being a really bad decision on his part, and one that definitely colors my view of him heading into this election. I would have voted for John McCain in 2000, but his series of very bad decisions in this campaign make me question his judgement and readiness to lead this nation out of this very dark period.

camper 6 years, 6 months ago

Pt 2. Just one last point meant in good humor....If I did actually make 280,000 bucks a year, believe me I would wake up every morning, thank god and the stars above, and even in the worst of mmods still probably would not complain much about $900 bucks.

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Nice piece Paul, I agree with you almost entirely. I would also add that politicians lie. If you beileve Obama is only going to raise taxes on those makign over $250k, you are naive. His spending proposals are gigantic and his tax increase to those making over $250k will not pay for all the entitlements.I will not be voting for a Santa Clause (a candidate who promises everything to me) I will vote based on who understands the proper limited role of government and doesn't punish people for their hard work while giving hand-outs to those who are too lazy to work (spread the wealth).

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Beatrice:Obama is the fearmonger. No matter who the Republican presidential nominee would have been his tactic would have been the same, tie the Republican candidate to the unpopular Bush. He doesn't want people to look at the individual because they would see McCain disagrees with Bush on numerous significant issues, and see Obama has no experience and is all fluff. This tactic works well on the simple minded. And since you clearly cannot provide evidence that Obama has the necessary economic, foreign or domestic experience you attack McCain. This is the same fearmongering tacting Obama uses. If Obama wins this election it is because he bought the election (and will have to "payback" all those campaign contributors). If Obama is so concerned with helping the poor why doesn't he spent the 600 million he raised on them? Is it because he only wants to spend other people's money on solving social problems, that way when the government entitlements fail he isn't losing anything?Your fear tactics against McCain will only work on the simple minded, and everyone can see Obama will be learning on the job. Remember this when this oasis mirage disappears and you are left with the sandy reality that redistribution of wealth doesn't work and Obama turns this expected short recession into a longer one or even a depression. Socialism fails every time it is tried.Maybe you should follow Obama's "leadership" and vote the way he does "Present" for President.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

continuedThird: World perception. Let's face it, McCain is another Bush at this point. He was not in 2000, he probably deserved his maverick title then, but when he lost that election his last 8 years have been spent sucking onto the Bush-wagon, voting the Bush way, and in all other ways selling out to the right-wing conservative base, to my mind because the good of the country has been subsumed by his desperate desire to be president. He is not the same politician as he was back then (assuming he was that politician back then), and in the eyes of the world stage, at this point, he is largely indistinguishable from Bush. In the course of the last 8 years, I have been to quite a number of foreign countries, talked with people from many more, and they all Hate Bush. The whole world, with the exception of the 25% (?) domestically who approve of his policies think he was the worst thing to happen in a generation, and most of them think McCain will be a continuation of the same. America will look definedly better in the eyes of the rest of the world should we not elect McCain, and eventually (probably sooner than later) we here in America will wake up and realize that we have let arrogance of our position squander our advantage, and we have nothing more than 5% of the World population, and 25% and falling of the world's economic activity. When that happens, I'd rather we have someone willing to work with the World, rather than forcing the world to work with us.I'll stop it there, at three, since that's all you requested. I could go on, of course.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Bubarubu & Jonas - After taking time to consider both candidates, I based my vote on the three issues that are important to me. Again, based on my opinion. Why do I have defend my opinion and what makes your opinion better than mine. How about the both of you give me three issues on which you are voting for Obama. At least that's whom I assume you both are voting for. Again three issues that are important to you, not any social or economic agenda, unless it directly related to you, or even the candidates qualifications. Care to give that a try?

Gareth Skarka 6 years, 6 months ago

And people wonder why I used the term "dumbass."I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

feeble 6 years, 6 months ago

pault (Anonymous) says:sdinges - I'm not sure of the details of The Lebanon hostage crisis back in the eighties, but I'm sure that the American embassy was not capable of intervening in that situation and it was up to the President at that time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paul, are you referring to TWA 847? There were several high profile kidnappings by terrorist organizations in Lebanon between 1982-1992. In the TWA case, hostages were released because Israel and Greece capitulated and agreed to several of the terrorists demands.Given the current presidents unwillingness to negotiate with terrorists, I would suspect that the US would not play a role, at least a direct one, were this to happen today. If the hijacking occurred in US airspace, I imagine the USAF would either force the plane down or shoot it down, to prevent the plane from being used as a weapon.In general, if you are traveling in countries with US Embassies or consulates, you should be ok, as the US has a very well development consular service organization. One can look to the recent trouble in Beruit, as famously (and inadvertently) documented by Anthony Bourdain as an example of US response.If you are traveling to a country or location not approved for travel by the US government, you do so at your own peril.

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

Stupid said, "After all, we all share the same tank we gotta swim in". Bad analogy. I should have said the same country we all live in.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 5 months ago

"My choice for president"McCain isn't a choice; McCain is a concession.

jonas 6 years, 5 months ago

"Say you are going to war torn zone for humanitarian efforts and you have two "lifelines" to choose. Person A is a decorated war veteran with immense experience fighting wars. Person B has no combat or military experience. You get to choose one of them as your bodyguard. Would you really even consider person B? That's why I think McCain would be more decisive and apt to help Americans in a hostile situation."Holy god, paul, stop the analogies. You can't posit experience as a pilot to experience as Commander in Chief any more than you can suggest that a front line soldier could suddenly step up and lead a protracted war. If you could, our current president would likely be John Kerry, not George Bush. Your hypothetical scenario is highly questionable past that, too. First, the assumption that you would somehow merit special consideration, having gone to a war-torn area of your own volition (and likely against the advisement of the State Department) is rather ludicrous. Second, the idea that the potential President's involved would be any different in their response, should they decide that somehow you merited special attention, due to their relative experience on the field, is reaching at best, illusory at worst. At any rate, McCain himself is Not going to come roaring in like Tony Stark in his Iron Man suit to break you out. Likely, in both cases, what would happen was a long period of negotiation. The idea that you as a singular human would warrant military intervention is totally absurd.Don't even get me started on the comparison to Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Say you're on Double Dare, and you've gotten hit with the Physical Challenge. Who would you want on your side? A guy who's in his 80's, and looks like he can barely open his mouth naturally, or a younger, relatively fit, slender man? I have no issue with you voting McCain. I had planned on it, because I felt with a Democratic Congress a young Democratic president would potentially be a rehash of what we got landed with in 2000, but in ideological reverse, though I have spent the last few months being convinced against voting for him by McCain himself. Your stated reasons for voting for him, however, have so far been Comedy of the Absurd. I respect your willingness to put your head on the block, and the resilience with which you have defended yourself, and I'm not saying this out of derision, but a genuine plea for you to think more thoroughly about what you are saying. I got no response to my first criticism of your argument, but I hope with both of these that at least you have something to consider.

pault 6 years, 6 months ago

bookemdano & Bubarubu - You might have a point on the "what ifs". But the fact is I do travel to parts of the world where there Islamic fundamentalist have caused trouble. So maybe my "what if's" should be changed to "what if it happens again when I'm there." McCain hasn't been hospitalized for any illness as far as I know. To say that he might die is office is speculation. To say that war might break out in the part of the world I'm going, has happened. Hope that helps make my reason more valid.

bookemdano 6 years, 6 months ago

Paul-- So I guess you didn't know that John McCain has indeed been hospitalized not once, but multiple times for malignant melanoma? That's the most deadly form of skin cancer there is.Anyway, if you want to modify your criteria to fit your decision, that's fine. But just know from an outside perspective it sort of appears like a cop-out. Furthermore I really don't see what evidence you have that John McCain would be more likely to intervene if you got trapped in a hostile country than Obama would... has either candidate told you (or anyone else) what he would do? If not, upon what do you base your assertion that McCain would rescue you and Obama wouldn't? Frankly, I have my doubts that either man would potentially put the greater good at risk just to save me or my family from a dangerous situation I put myself in. Both men have the country's best interests at heart, not individual citizens' (as cynical as that sounds). Conversely I think both McCain and Obama would do whatever they could do to try to get us home, within limits.So you think the Palin pick shows good judgement on McCain's part, given his age and health and the dire straits this country and world are in?

Satirical 6 years, 5 months ago

Query to the Obama supporter:.What experience does Obama have to run the largest and most complex economy on the earth?What experience does Obama have on foreign affairs?Is Obama's redistribution of wealth plan good for America?If your answers are that advisors will help him, remember he has to make the final call. Can we really afford another President who has to learn on the job? One of the few times Obama actually made an important political decision (and didn't vote present) he voted against the Surge in Iraq claiming it would make the situation worse.Obama is a mirage. (If you are an atheist, then believing in Obama's ability to be POTUS would be like believing in a deity without any proof)

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

logicsound04 - As I had asked someone else earlier, could you share with me how you got the information on "Obama's money coming in the form of small, individual contributions rather than large donors with a vested interest." Also, since you are pointing out my flaws, I assume you are going to be able to provide me with an accurate break down of the number of people and the amount that they each donated. I mean, I don't want to find flaw in your information because anything less than detailed information is purely speculation or repetition of something you read somewhere. And we all know that could be flawed.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

"as no president has ever died in office"Whooops, or at least I think you might have said that. We've had quite a number of presidents die of natural causes in office.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

logicsound: You might have done better to paraphrase me, as we have a paradox between succinct and the typo which should be "resistant."chuckle

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

JJE007 - I have to say that by far, you seem like the most ignorant person on this blog. Have you heard about such a thing called hostages, kidnapping, hostile takeovers, etc? Are you that ignorant to know about the world that exists beyond our borders? There are evil people looking for ways to harm Americans. Remember the evangelist who was killed in the Philippines? Remember the reporter who was beheaded? How about the embassy bombings? They were all just doing their job, not "selling Girl Scout cookies at a crack house." And yes, the government did find ways to help them. I hope that even all of you who disagree with my politics will agree that this person is ignorant and shortsighted beyond reason. I expect either candidate protect its citizens when they are in trouble overseas.

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

Yeah Paul, you are correct on that. One point for you. Think of some other sensational tactics the Democrats have used. I can think the ratio is about 10:1 McCain vs Obama and I can throw out some Rebulican sensationalism if you want me to. Do you want to go down this road? I'm willing to debate you on this.

NObomination 6 years, 5 months ago

Just Say NO!First time voter? Paul has been in this town for at least 10 years. How is he a first time voter?Hi Paul. How is John?

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

Paul, I have to say that you are continuing to bring in some poor examples and being swayed by the sensationalism employed by some conservatives. This guilt by association thing is troubling to me too because it is false and bad logic to use these tactics. If we all sat down and pretended that we were up for election, can you imagine all of the skeletons we all have in our closets. Our relatives, youthful mischief and indiscretions, everybody we played softball with, went to church with, the no good brother in law. Geeze. This is disappointing that the Republicans are focusing on this, because I agree with them some of the time. Obama so far has not resorted to this sleazy tactic because he has thus far displayed a more even and rational temper. Believe me, he could surely mudsling if he wanted to, but is taking the high road. This is why I like him, and this is the type of person whom I trust to lead us.

black_butterfly 6 years, 5 months ago

It is sad that some people would rather have an incompetent president than have a president who is bi-racial. I am voting for Obama because he is the best person for the job; not because his skin looks like mine. If McCain was the best person for the job I would vote for him. The plain simple truth is, McCain isn't what's best for this country. Even if he was, he may not live long enough to make any significant changes. It's scary that some of you would rather see PALIN running this country instead of a very competent Obama who is educated, level headed, informed, serious and a man who wants to represent ALL americans. Paul is entitled to his opinion, but I pray that everyone does the right thing and votes Obama/ Biden on Nov. 4th.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Camper - You want sensationalism? How about lets start with Palin's $150,000 she spent on her clothes. Enough said.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Did you Obama read on MSNBC that Obama has an aunt that is living in the US illegally? Also he claims not to know her status when he writes about her in his book and she attended Obama's swearing in. His character is becoming shady at best. Who knows what other skeletons we will find out? A person character is of the most importance because that is the foundation of his beliefs and action. His action so far has not been one of a noble character.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

I suppose the stated reason for this blog was just to announce your opinion, and not to think about it, but the resistence to looking into your reasons to make sure that they are based on, well, reason, is somewhat depressing, and rather disturbing. "Unlike many people, I don't have any political party alliance, any historical or family baggage that will influence the way I vote. My vote is for sale. It's going to be sold to the influences, persuasion of ideas and philosophy of the candidates. It will be bought by the conversations and exchange of opinions that I have with people. My vote is for sale to the candidate who best sells me on his master plan. In the following weeks I'm going to write in this column my thought process, my concerns, my opinions and eventually whom I am going to vote for. Feel free to buy my vote with your opinions so that I can cast a vote for the best candidate for my country. Yes, I said my country."I do not see this kind of open-minded approach in your responses on this thread. You seem, in fact, highly resistence to consideration of your beliefs at this point. What happened?

ebyrdstarr 6 years, 5 months ago

Paul, please explain what exactly it is about the aunt living in Boston illegally that you think demonstrates "shady" character by Sen. Obama? He has never been closely connected to that side of his family because his father simply was not involved in his life. But somehow it reflects poorly on him that he did not know the details of how this aunt that he has only had sporadic contact with was living?Or does it reflect poorly on Sen. Obama that he has a law-breaking relative? Because Sen. McCain has a brother who is facing a brush with the law. You probably haven't heard about Sen. McCain's brother calling 911 to complain about traffic. It is illegal to abuse 911 by calling with non-emergent calls. But obviously it isn't Sen. McCain's fault that his brother is kind of a nut, so is it really Sen. Obama's failure that his aunt broke the law?BTW, yes, Sen. Obama reallocated press seats on his plane for this final week. So did Sen. McCain. But I bet Rush Limbaugh didn't mention that. I would guess he also didn't say anything about Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd earlier losing their spots on planes for writing unflattering things. The Obama campaign has been working with the 3 booted reporters to help coordinate their travel so they could continue covering the final days of the campaign.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Jonas - Just because I'm open-minded doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. When I said my vote is for sale, it didn't mean I had no clue of what was going on. I still don't have any party alliance or any political baggage, but I do have an opinion. I also had the good fortune of growing up and living in more than one country so I do have some core beliefs and principles. That's what makes me who I am, just like your beliefs and principles were formed way before this election. Does that mean you had already made up your mind before you participated in this blog? I'm sure your reason to vote is based on that core belief and principles, does that make you ignorant? I'm choosing to vote based on my core beliefs and principles, just because it doesn't mirror yours, doesn't mean I'm wrong.Despite everyone's persuasions, nothing anyone has shared has convinced me otherwise on the three issues that I based my vote on. We have debated many topics here, but if anyone can convince me that Obama is the better candidate on those three issues, go ahead and try or you can give up and call me names and accuse me for having made up my mind. It's your loss as I'm taking this election seriously, not that I can directly affect the outcome, but the journey I took to make my choices and decisions. It probably was not the perfect journey, but I did what I can. If that's not good enough, too bad, I still get to participate and enjoy my journey to the polling booth on Tuesday. By the way, I did make up my mind on one candidate. I had decided to vote for Anthony Brown before I began the blog because I know him. You have a problem with that?

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

Paul T Says "Look at Kevin Ferdeline! I just have an issue with the fact that the government can take my hard earned money in the name of being fair."Paul, I'd be glad and willing to let the government take my "hard earned money" to go toward rescuing your family if this ever occured. Though this sounds like Socialism. But if you are so much against this, i suppose you can hire a merenary team to do the job on your dime.

ebyrdstarr 6 years, 5 months ago

Paul, don't be ridiculous. Of course there are evil people in the world looking to harm Americans. But you said you would vote for McCain because he would be decisive enough to send a chopper to rescue you. What JJE, and a few other posters before him/her, was trying to point out to you is this: no president of any political leaning would send a chopper to rescue you. There would be no US military intervention to save you. Basically, the cavalry would not be coming. In all of those situations you mentioned, there was no US military intervention. The Kansas missionaries held hostage in the Philippines were hostages for over a year. It was the Philippine army that eventually launched a rescue mission that killed Martin but did save Gracia. Obviously things did not end well for journalist Daniel Pearl, who was not rescued by US troops. JJE was absolutely correct to think that this is quite frankly the silliest explanation ever for who someone supports in a presidential election.You want readers here to accept your claim that you have thought a lot about this decision and that you are an informed voter, but all of your posts prove your claim to be untrue. You listened to 3 minutes of a Rush Limbaugh show and chose to believe what you heard there unless and until someone else on this board did the research for you to prove what you heard was wrong. That is not being informed. That's the most sadly passive way of "educating" yourself. If you really value your right to vote and really want to be well-informed before you exercise your right, take 10 minutes a day and google some things. Use google to find the full stories behind the half-truths you heard on Limbaugh the other day. Use google to find multiple takes on issues so you can neutralize biases. Try that instead of lashing back blindly at the people who challenge your weak, silly, unsupported assertions. (I feel better now. I've been wanting to post that for two days.)

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

ebyrdstarr - I just had a feeling that when I mentioned Limbaugh's name, it would rattle liberals like you. Again, I said 5 minutes listening that day, and that's not going shape my thinking just like it would if I were to listen to CNN or NBC or any other news media. Get over Limbaugh, he has no part in my decision. Please do be so caught up in your own bias that you think others are as narrow minded as you. As for wanting to be rescued, let me make it clear. I did say my family, and I said that to personalize the issue. What I mean is I want to see that kind of protection for any and every American. If you and you family were in a hijacked plane overseas, it would be the headline news in all news media and there would be a statement about how the US is doing everything they can to bring you and your family home safely. It's ignorant to think otherwise. And as far as Obama having sporadic contact with his aunt, I would suggest you read his book. Maybe I need to read it too, but it's my understanding that he refers to her as"Aunti Zeituni" and that she attended his swearing in as senator. She also illegally contributed to his campaign. I don't know how you could have sporadic contact and yet call them with the endearing term "Aunti Zeituni". It's time Obama showed his true colors. There are too many things that Obama don't want us to know about his background and past and that is reason for concern.

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

Has Obama sensationalized McCains involvment in the S&L scandal. The Keating 5. No. Did he get up on the podium and bring this up like Palin surely would have done. No. Did Obama really go into the dirt and dig up McCain's relationship to G Gordon Libby. No. Probably because he knew that by resorting to these low-ball tactics is nonsense. To be sure "the left wing media" has brought these things up, but I have not seen Obama bring it to the podium. And this is the difference.

ebyrdstarr 6 years, 5 months ago

Please point to where in this topic I have identified myself as a liberal. I have not said one word about my political leanings. All I have done is point out some of the serious logical and factual flaws in your ever-shifting rationalizations for your support of McCain. I don't care who you vote for; I just care that people who claim to care deeply about being informed actually bother to make themselves informed.The fact that you listened to Limbaugh did not rattle me. What goaded me was your comment that you listened for 5 minutes, took all you heard as true, and repeatedly put the burden on other posters (notably logicsound) to prove it wrong. It's that kind of refusal to take responsibility for the things you choose to believe that makes me crazy. And to try to pretend that Limbaugh isn't biased is just nuts. There is often some truth to what he says, but you do have to do a little leg work (easily doable on the internet) to find the full story. Why are you so resistant to doing these things?Aunti is not an "endearing" term. It's the standard term for many cultures. (My Filipino family members call all aunts "Aunti", even the ones they barely know or can't stand.) He can legitimately call her his "Aunti" without having a close relationship with her. If you even read the msnbc article you linked to, you would know why I referred to sporadic contact. In his lifetime, Sen. Obama has visited with the woman about 4 times, including his swearing-in as Senator. Compared to my relationship with my aunt, I consider that sporadic contact. And by the way, you still didn't explain how his aunt's law-breaking reflects on Sen. Obama himself. As for her campaign contributions, yes they are illegal and now that they have come to light, I am sure they will be returned as required by law. There simply is no way for any campaign to avoid any and all illegal contributions, but they do the best they can and return the contributions that turn out to be illegal. I am confident that Sen. McCain's campaign has also accepted some donations that are not legal. And finally, back to the rescue thing. You didn't say you wanted a president who would work to negotiate your release in a hostage situation. You said you wanted a president who would be decisive enough to send a chopper right away. That's silly. If what you really meant was that you believe Sen. McCain would be a better president in terms of negotiating with foreign powers to help Americans caught in war zones, why didn't you just write that?

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

McCain made a big example about Obama's support for this planetarium ear-mark. OK. Did Obama go thru all of the budgets McCain voted for? Surely Obama could have found something. Did he bring them up? Sensationalize them? No. Obama probably realized that when you are talking about the federal budget (almost 3 trillion now) that a telescope might be wrong, but it is still a grain of sand. You have to judge the materiality of things. McCain wants to look after the pennies, but not after the dollars. You've gotta be able to view things in scale.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

"I'm choosing to vote based on my core beliefs and principles, just because it doesn't mirror yours, doesn't mean I'm wrong."No, it certainly wouldn't. The fact that in many cases you are basing your beliefs and opinions on fictitious examples and erroneous interpretations makes some of your positions potentially wrong.I can only say this so many times, since it does not appear that you are listening. It doesn't matter to me who you are voting for, you are entitled to your vote. I have people that I am friends with, and people that I respect, on both sides of the aisle, and with opinions that are disparate from mine. I think if you look you'll actually fine that I'm one of the most equananimous and non-partisan posters on this board. There are plenty of real, valid reasons to vote for either of these candidates. But virtually every one of your stated reasons has holes or inconsistencies big enough to drive a truck through. I have brought up multiple examples of your logical flaws, and other posters have as well. Instead of thinking or considering, as you said you wanted to do at one point, you have gotten progressively more angry and rigidly argumentative as this thread has devolved. That is as much your right as voting for whoever you want to vote for, but again its depressing to see you close your mind to such an extent.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 5 months ago

"Whom would I trust to provide protection for my family if we were stranded overseas during or prior to conflict? "You are voting according to THIS criteria?~)Wow.What toothpaste they use would be a better criteria.You are fearful. You expect our nation to protect you no matter where you are.Foolish.If you leave this country, you are responsible for your own safety. Protecting people who are unable to determine the danger of traveling is not even close to being an important an important purview of our government. They try, but it is WAY down on the list of priorities for the VAST majority of the electorate. If I go to a crack house to sell girl scout cookies, should I expect to be protected? NO! If I go to downtown Lawrence to get a beer, should I expect to be protected? NO! If I'm sitting at home watching Project Runway, should I expect to be protected? NO!Excuse me but this is about the most lame argument for voting Republican that I have ever heard. You want the people to pay for the protection of you and your family when you travel overseas? Is protection of the world travelers a goal of the Republicans? Should it be?I say "NO!". Don't expect the vast majority of Americans to support you on this.That kind of elitist welfare is just crazy talk. Is that what voting Republican means to you? Answer that question first, please.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

NObomination - You obviously dont understand the right to vote. Just because I lived here doesnt give me the right to vote. Take some time and find out what gives a person the right to vote. Which John? Joe Doe, John Smith? John Travolta?

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

Continued. For lower level elections I even sometimes vote against a candidate who uses negative ads. If I hear even one negative ad and fear mongering (I define as propaganda) I simply won't vote for them. They lose me right then and there.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

logicsound04 - Heard of Pearl Harbor? What did the US do after it was attacked? Did they negotiate and sign a treaty? Look at what the US action did to the Japaneseand where things are now. Good thing that the US president didn't think that military action were the last resorts. As far as negotiation and preventing a war, heard of the holocaust? Or Pearl Harbor as I just mentioned, how about WW1 WW2? While is ideal to prevent a war, it's been proven that war can erupt at any given time. So, yes, I do believe that Obama is more of a "lover than a fighter" unfortunately I don't think that's the kind of person who is best suitedfor the job. You may disagree and that's fine, but don't try to make it sound that I'm wrong to have an opinion that is different from yours..

ksdivakat 6 years, 5 months ago

Logic, actually I dont equate muslims automatically with terrorism, I know that there are other terrorist, aside from muslims, so im not drawing out one religion over another, I am focusing on terrorism as a whole, and also, I to have spoken with people who live abroad and Africans as well, and you are right, I have definately heard that about mccain, that it would be more of bushco policy, but I have also heard from others who believe Obama is not a good pick either, and their arguments are good as well, so I was hoping that there would be this "October surprise" that Ive been hearing about and that would cinch it up for me, but theres nothing, from either candidate except alot of trashing the other and more of the same. So who to pick?? Which is the lesser of the 2 evils?? I just dont know, historically the dems are better for our economy and getting it back on track, however, they are also entirely too liberal and over the top, where the republicans are conservative but they are of the mind frame that the rich man dances while the poor man pays the band.....and I aint rich!! LOL so I will keep my ears open tonight and see what happens, if there is some big news issue with either one of them and will have to hope that by the time I go to the polls tomorow I will know who to vote for!

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

"Please explain how YOU would address the multitudes of people who are voting for Obama because he is black, and because his victory would be symbolic and historic."Assuming that this is the only reason, and it has nothing to do with anything else, I would say those people are being stupid, but I can't see what this has to do with anything."Don't even try to justify that this is a minority group, if you really have done you homework, you know there are a lot of them who are casting their votes based on Obama's race." A lot of people can still be a minority group. There are over 300 million people in our country, more or less. But of course, "doing your homework" can mean all sorts of things. Perhaps you'd care to cite your source on this notion of a huge group only voting based on race. "Are these people more rationale and informed than I am?"Are you suggesting that you strive to be nothing more than someone who doesn't base their vote entirely off of race? At any rate, once someone puts up their blog on this site legitimately saying that they are only voting based on race, then you can be sure that I'll be there, pointing out the absurdities of their argument, just as I am here with you.

camper 6 years, 5 months ago

Paul, here is one that might fall under "handling a wartime crisis". Obama might be better equiped to avoid a crisis from happening. Though he was not a Senator at the time. he has been on record stating his opposition to to the Iraq war from the start. He has also stated that he prefers diplomacy and is willing to negotiate...even with our enemies. There is nothing in the world as terrible as war, and I would support a candidate who is willing to use all means to avoid it, and the sense to send our troops into conflict only after all means of diplomacy have been tried.As far as minority voting. I think a lot of people would be deeply offended by your assumption that they are uninformed. Why do you attempt to speak for them, and label them in such a way? I am certain that many Americans had the chance and viewed the debates, read newspapers, and watch the news. I never said you were uninformed, and I believe the contrary. I respect your decision to write about this and express your opinion. There are some who argue that if you are uninformed, you should not vote. But how can you measure this. Presidential elections are so high profile that it is almost impossible to be uninformed. I sometimes wonder about my level of knowledge when it comes to lower level elections. The Journal World does a good job of posting election day info for all candidates, and I sometimes use this. I never vote a straight ticket.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

You have taken the viewpoint of one columnist and, as you say, three Entire People, and then said that it is not a minority group, and you have the gall to call Us uninformed?You have now put words in my mouth that I did not say, or at the very least oversimplified your opposition. I distinctly said that voters who would vote based solely on race are stupid, which is the same as ignorant, really. And I did find that article, prior to your mention, under a google search, I believe, for "people vote for Obama because he is black." Is that your version of "doing your homework?""Most of you assume that a vote for McCain must be a vote that is uneducated or wrong."No, only when the reasons that they provide are wrong. Really, only when they stubbornly insist on absolutely defending their reasons after they are shown to be wrong. We've been over this already. Or rather, I've been over this. "I have no issues with those who are voting for Obama. Even if their reasoning is based on ignorance."You don't have issue that someone would vote for our next President based on ignorant reasoning? Why not?

ksdivakat 6 years, 5 months ago

Wow....there must be some really old people on here blogging or people who just dont have a clue! Now I said that I dont know who Im gonna vote for and that is true, but comparing obamas foreign policy experince to mccains is like comparing an adult CCH carrier to a 2 y/o child who happens to have a gun.When it comes to war I dont want to be in one either, but I sures the heck dont want someone who will go over and sip tea with our enemies while they are plotting our demise via a nuclear weapon.I think that what most people do not realize unless they are fluent travelers outside the US is just exactly how much the US is hated by the world. The powers that be, NKorea, Iran, etc, they dont want to sit down and sip tea with Obama and work something out.I want a President who will get up in the morning and grab his balls and say lets go kill some terrorists today! Sorry, but unless we have someone with guts in there, then the worl could potentially run the US right over, now if thats Obama then I have no problem with him, but to say that we want a President who will go have tea and cookies with the enemy and talk about is insane...sorry....JMHO

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Logic - The opinion that the earth is the center of the universe is based on proven fact. So of course it can be wrong. If you we to hold the opinion that the world will end in one week, that is an opinion based on your belief. I can argue till I'm blue in my face but neither one of us will get anywhere. Hence, you think Obama will be a better candidate for President, but that's just your opinion based on your research and belief. We will know the real answer in 4 years. Then if you still think he was a great president, it can be refuted or supported by facts.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

logic - "I think you are wrong on specific ideas. Explain to me why you are correct"Maybe I have not made myself clear. My point is that I don't have to explain in detail why I'm voting for McCain. I already said that its based on my BELIEF that he would do a better job as a president on the 3 issues that are feel are important to me. Maybe my reasoning is bad or flawed, but I don't have to justify it just because I post it on a blog. You can ask and debate me, but at some point you have to accept that I'm voting based on my opinion, not a scientific theory that can be tested for flaws. We are debating opinions here. I don't have to know in detail why you are voting for Obama. You have mentioned a few and that great. Go vote for him tomorrow, I don't have to know that you are voting on sound reason. I'm happy that you are exercising your right to vote.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 5 months ago

pault says:JJE007 - I have to say that by far, you seem like the most ignorant person on this blog.---You just HAD to say that, eh?~) Sweet.I'm glad you continue to be able to formulate such brilliant opinions without even a modicum of understanding, and happy to be Number ONE in your fool book. Yay!~)Just how frightened, paranoid and unrealistic do you have to be to insist that the nanny state protect you and yours across the entire planet? Never mind. I'm closing the fool book. I think I'll always be too ignorant to understand the contrast in your darkling brilliance.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

I'm not contradicting myself, you're either making things up or simply refusing (or perhaps, unable) to understand what I've been telling you. Or you are spinning things to make them say what you want them to say. So. . . .I will make this simple, two sentences, so you can analyze them and discern what I've been trying, for multiple posts, to tell you. I have Not, at any point, said that people should not be allowed to vote, or they don't have the right to vote, etc., because they have not informed themselves. What I have been saying is that When people vote, they Should take the time to inform themselves if they want to be responsible voters. And now a question: If someone was to not know heads or tails between the two candidates, and they just flipped a coin, would they be responsible voters?If they didn't know anything, and they just wrote in Ronald McDonald, would they be responsible voters?If they wrote in Osama Bin Laden, would they be responsible voters?I say no, but people are free to do any of those above things. If they told me they did this, I would rip them up one side and down the other, but I would not demand or require that they change their vote. Do I finally have your understanding? I have been as clear as I possibly could.

ksdivakat 6 years, 5 months ago

oh yeah and since this is my first pres election to vote in, I have a question.....Will we know tomorrow night who won after the polls close??

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

and can I assume that your silence means that you've finally understood the difference between should and have to?

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

logicsound04, camper and all of you who have been criticizing me because I'm have not been well informed or rational in my vote. Please explain how YOU would address the multitudes of people who are voting for Obama because he is black, and because his victory would be symbolic and historic. Don't even try to justify that this is a minority group, if you really have done you homework, you know there are a lot of them who are casting their votes based on Obama's race. Are these people more rationale and informed than I am? Most importantly, I want to know what you would tell these voters and how you would criticize them, as you have me, for being uninformed and unqualified to vote. Don't even go to those who voting against him because of his race, I'm sure I know what your thoughts are and I probably agree with some of them. I want to see if you would apply the same standard to those who vote based on his color as you all have applied to me.Finally on the topic of hostage rescue. I said I'm voting because I belief McCain would more apt to handle wartime situation based on his time spend in the military and as a POW. I'm not saying that he guarantees success, just that I BELIEF that he would fare better than Obama. If any of you can cite me any of Obama's wartime experience that would convince me that he would be apt and able to handle a war crisis, I might consider changing my vote. I need actually situations that he has directly been involved in, not what he voted for.Douglas County, since you only want yes or no answers, its no for both of them.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Jonas - "You don't have issue that someone would vote for our next President based on ignorant reasoning? Why not? Why not? because it's their right to choose how they want to vote. There is no law or rights that requires a person to vote without ignorance. Just like it's a woman's choice to have an abortion. Isn't it her body and it's her choice on what she chooses? You don't demand a woman to give a reason as to why she chooses to have an abortion do you? Isn't that called the right to choose? It's the same principle as Pro-Choice. Unless you think Pro-Choice is wrong. I'm not required to police how someone votes. As long as they vote, they are being responsible to their duty as citizen.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

DouglasCountySucks & Jonas - Here is a direct quote from another columnist Gary Kamiya. I don't know anything about him, but the fact that you think that people don't vote on the basis of color, makes you incredibly shortsighted and ignorant. " I admit it: I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's black. I believe that most of Obama's supporters are voting for him for the same reason...But it's his blackness that seals the deal"-Gary Kamiya.My point on this race issue is that most of you who support Obama are not as perturbed or indignant as you are to me because they have been responsible in researching and voting based on other issues. Most of you are more than willing to point out my flaws and the holes in my reasoning to vote McCain where you don't hold other voters who either vote on race or just decided that Obama sounds like he has the plan. You all are indignant that people with reasonable intellect would vote for McCain, be it for any reason. Most of you assume that a vote for McCain must be a vote that is uneducated or wrong. Can't you all just accept the fact that there are people who think and have a different mind set than those who support Obama. Can you honestly say that every vote for Obama is a vote cast based on solid intellect and exceptional research? The most glaring lesson I have learned in this process is that most of Obama supports have a hard time respecting those who choose to vote for McCain, no matter what the reason. I have no issues with those who are voting for Obama. Even if their reasoning is based on ignorance. I'm willing to accept that the country that took me in as a citizen has room from my views and thoughts and principles. I'm more than happy to debate and discuss it. But when people like DouglasCounty sucks makes comments like I shouldn't be allowed to vote just because I have an idea that people vote based on race alone. shows the intolerance of narrow-minded people who are more damaging to the country than me. For the record, I have had 3 people who told me that the only reason they are voting for Obama is because he is black.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

"We will know the real answer in 4 years. Then if you still think he was a great president, it can be refuted or supported by facts."Can it? Likely, by this standard, all we'll have then are opinions as well.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

jonas- you still cant see it can you? In 4 years if the economy sucks or the nation is still at war or if he raised taxes on the middle class, or if the opposite happens, we WILL know and it wont be an opinion. His reelection or one term will be evidence of how good of a president he was. As for should have and have to, I really don't have to.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

"There is no law or rights that requires a person to vote without ignorance."Of course not, but they still should. "Just like it's a woman's choice to have an abortion."No it's not. A woman having an abortion only affects her, the choice for President affects everybody, much more so than an individual abortion."Isn't it her body and it's her choice on what she chooses?"Sure, but she should make a reasonable and rational choice, regardless. "You don't demand a woman to give a reason as to why she chooses to have an abortion do you?"If she posted a blog about it, I probably would request it. I don't generally make demands."I'm not required to police how someone votes."No one's asking you to. "As long as they vote, they are being responsible to their duty as citizen."Well, we're going to have to disagree here. You don't have a duty to vote, there's no requirement. Writing a blind choice, or one based on fictitious and illusory psuedo-reasons is Not being responsible, to my mind. Taking on yourself the responsibility to look up the issues or think about the potential issues, thinking about it, and voting your mind based on facts available to you, that is being responsable with your right as a citizen to vote.

ksdivakat 6 years, 5 months ago

This is terrible that we really dont have either one as a great candidate, but who is the lesser of the evils...that is the question of the day?????!!!!!!!

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

ksdivakat - for what its worth, this is my first time voting and I'm voting for McCain and on the local level, Anthony Brown, just because I know him. Maybe you would consider voting for these 2 candidates.

tongaloid 6 years, 5 months ago

What most fail to realize is the president has no right to reward or punish anyone based on income, or anything else for that matter. Everyone fails to remember that spending and budgets start in congress and congress has never been given the power over health care, education, environment, and being a charity. Re-educate yourself and read the constitution. You will be amazed how much money is spent outside the powers given to the federal government.

ksdivakat 6 years, 5 months ago

I still dont know who I am going to vote for tomorrow:(

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

"Heard of Pearl Harbor? What did the US do after it was attacked? Did they negotiate and sign a treaty? Look at what the US action did to the Japaneseand where things are now."Heard of Commander Perry and the opening of the Tokyo ports? What about the Meiji restoration? How about the Opium Wars in China? The Japanese heard of the Opium Wars, and they knew they could potentially be at a point where they could get invaded by foreign powers hungry for Japanese goods, obtainable through whatever method got the West what it wanted. Had America been informed on these things, and of the Japanese motivations, they could have potentially prevented Pearl Harbor, by negotiating and signing a fair treaty. Instead, hundreds of thousands died before a decent relationship was established.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

ksdivikat: Christ, I hear you. Nothing that McCain has done to lose my vote makes me any more confident in Obama for this current election cycle. I wish he was running 10 years from now. Perhaps it's good that if you don't for McCain here in KS, you're basically throwing your vote away.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

"As for should have and have to, I really don't have to."Fair enough then. I'll remember that.That you don't, that is. Sorry to hear that.

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

Jonas- you are contradicting your self:"There is no law or rights that require a person to vote without ignorance."Of course not, but they still should - No one has the responsibility to judge a person's voting reasons. Maybe you feel that way but there is no backing for your claimI didn't say I have to duty to vote, I said I have the right to vote and it's the duty of a citizen to be responsible to vote. Read before you try to respond. Read at below the right to vote from the US Department of State. No where it says that I have to base my vote on anything. I understand it's important to be informed, but the levels at which people are informed is going to vary. For you to want every voter to vote based on your standards is fat fetched. I'm voting based on my reasons and if it doesn't meet your standards, tough. Live with it. This is America and while you can criticize and condemn my vote, there is nothing wrong with how and who I vote for,The Right to VoteThe right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.- Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870) The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.- Nineteenth Amendment (1920) The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.- Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.- Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)

pault 6 years, 5 months ago

logic- I voted today with the understanding that I might not have a total knowledge about all the candidates, including the local ones. I voted based on the fact that I know enough to form an opinion that aligns closely to my principles and views. I'm also confident that the majority of the voters are not as informed as they should be, Since you require justification for my vote, I will give it to you with the understanding that it might not be as all encompassing as you want. I'm voting for McCain because I believe that he best represents my interest and had the most experience to be President. duplenty - Haven't we already applied that metric to W? I think his approval ratings pretty much speak for themselves.

jonas_opines 6 years, 5 months ago

Ever wonder what Lincoln's approval ratings would have been right before he was assassinated?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.