Anyone not really interested in either Obama or McCain?

[strangeland2]

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

Any interest?

[Mr_Cheeze]

This was touched upon in the other thread. For me, the only interest lies in the possibility of getting a third party some legitimacy with a respectable showing. Other than that, I think the Libertarians sold out by choosing Barr, but I guess they could be forgiven given that they won't win and are just looking for a good showing. I just hope Barr isn't a harbinger of the future of the party.

[Slappy]

I'll be voting Libertarian.
I consider it a vote against the 2 party system, which once again has left us with crap to choose from.

[bikdav]

You just might be onto something. Neither McCain nor Obama impress me. Sarah Palin turns me off even more. If other choices do in fact appear, I just might look at them. My vote is probably going to be like throwing a dart in the dark - who knows where the dart will land.

[strangeland2]

You just might be onto something. Neither McCain nor Obama impress me. Sarah Palin turns me off even more. If other choices do in fact appear, I just might look at them. My vote is probably going to be like throwing a dart in the dark - who knows where the dart will land.

Im the opposite. I like Palin. I realize she isnt the most experienced but that doesnt bother me. Its McCain Im not to crazy about. Ahhh decisions decisions.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You like a woman who believes in creationism and the rapture? yikes

[kernel crash]

You like a woman who believes in creationism and the rapture? yikes

I think Palins biggest problem is that she had no experience on the big stage of National politics. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It just means that she can't look the reporter square in the eye like a Bill Clinton or a Biden and lie her ass off. In other words when you get a question you can't handle or when the answer their looking for doesn't fit the agenda your promoting, you need to be experienced enough to deftly change the subject or throw so much verbage out there as to create a blizzard of buzzwords that leaves the listener thinking the question just got answered. As far as her religious beliefs were suppose to believe in seperation of church and state. JFK got a lot of grief for being a Catholic. Romney for being a Mormon. Obama for being a socialist. We can find something to rip about all these candidates.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Sorry, but it's just a bit more scary to me to have someone who chooses to shun science in favor of a biblical interpretation of creation, and who believes that our presence in the Middle East is all a part of god's plan for the return of Jesus Christ.
She's worse than a Mike Huckabee because she portrays a facade of innocence that charms people. It's no different than if either candidate chose a Scientologist or a Wiccan.

Yes, there is supposed to be a separation of Church and state. But the religious right seems to becoming more prevalent in the GOP these days. And we have Democrats who are very likely not religious at all being forced to proclaim some belief else they be branded as a dreaded atheist.

One of these days we'll finally have a truly brave candidate proud to admit his or her atheism. That will be a candidate that I can truly support with gusto, for then I think we'll be on the right track to becoming an enlightened nation.

[Slappy]

One of these days we'll finally have a truly brave candidate proud to admit his or her atheism. That will be a candidate that I can truly support with gusto, for then I think we'll be on the right track to becoming an enlightened nation.


:rad:

Be nice to finally crawl outta the dark ages someday, wouldn't it?

[Unbreakable]

I'll vote for a candidate guided by the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding fathers versus a candidate with no moral compass at all - EVERY TIME.

Think about it. Bush's Christian value set was his guide when he tried to halt stem cell research. But he only succeeded in slowing its advance. Like it or not, at least he had a belief that he took a stand on.

Now take the current financial crisis. How many Democrats decried the urgings of the President for tighter oversight of Fannie and Freddie? Who now among those same Democrats is claiming they knew this crisis was coming, and blame Republicans for stonewalling the $700 billion solution.
One excellent example is Rep. Barney Frank. The man has no shame whatsoever. With video clips all over the internet that show him railing against that oversight, he has the unmitigated gall to claim credit for helping us (little people) all out of a big mess while passing the blame. In case you miss my point, here is where a moral compass guides one away from such reprehensible behavior. But then you have to believe in something larger than your wallet. Not that the lack of morals issue is limited to the Democrats. Just that their party is rife with the problem.

Casting a vote for a Libertarian or Independent, while noble is like not voting at all; which is like voting for the candidate who wins.

Sadly, it appears that on Election Day we will continue our slide toward a nation of Babel.

[Slappy]

I like (hope) to think that mankind has reached a point where we're capable of behaving morally even in the absence of 'guidance' from mythical creatures (well, the indocrination from birth that substitutes for it). I know I have. My personal moral compass tells me that neither major party as they currently operate deserve my vote. And so they won't get it. I'm not in it to 'win' or 'lose' (which is the mindset that all the stupid partisan BS you're all too familiar with stems from), I'm in it have my opinion counted, and my opinion is that our gov't is too big for it's britches.

:D

[Mr_Cheeze]

I'll vote for a candidate guided by the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding fathers versus a candidate with no moral compass at all - EVERY TIME.



You are making a very big... and wrong assumption if you are saying that atheists are not moral, or would not be driven by a moral compass. Atheism is not anarchism. I think you would even find that, by and large, atheists are more likely to adhere to principles that you consider to be Judeo-Christian than most people who call themselves religious but only care to use their religion when it fancies them.

As for our founding fathers, you would be greatly surprised to find that some of them, most notably Thomas Jefferson and even John Adams, were not guided by Christianity. Jefferson, in fact, had many writing that prove him to have been decidedly atheistic. Do you think that the "separation doctrine" came from those most steeped in their superstitions?

And to say that voting third party is a waste is the single biggest bullsh*t statement anyone can possibly make concerning elections. I'm supposed to vote for someone that I despise, from a party that I despise, just to make my vote count? That is simply moronic.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I like (hope) to think that mankind has reached a point where we're capable of behaving morally even in the absence of 'guidance' from mythical creatures (well, the indocrination from birth that substitutes for it). I know I have. My personal moral compass tells me that neither major party as they currently operate deserve my vote. And so they won't get it. I'm not in it to 'win' or 'lose' (which is the mindset that all the stupid partisan BS you're all too familiar with stems from), I'm in it have my opinion counted, and my opinion is that our gov't is too big for it's britches.

:D

I highly recommend The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. In that book you will find the most convincing arguments showing exactly that your hope is already prevalent amongst those who espouse agnostic or atheistic philosohpy.

[Slappy]

I highly recommend The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. In that book you will find the most convincing arguments showing exactly that your hope is already prevalent amongst those who espouse agnostic or atheistic philosohpy.

Thanks. I've got that one on the list already from a prior recommendation. The End of Faith was decent also if you haven't tangled with it yet. (The author's tone got under my skin at ponits, but still a good read.)

[Unbreakable]

You are making a very big... and wrong assumption if you are saying that atheists are not moral, or would not be driven by a moral compass. Atheism is not anarchism. I think you would even find that, by and large, atheists are more likely to adhere to principles that you consider to be Judeo-Christian than most people who call themselves religious but only care to use their religion when it fancies them.
Where did I use the word “Atheist” in my previous post? While you and I might agree that most (if not all) Atheists are guided by some set of principles; and that the Bible thumpers are giving the Christian majority a bad name. Let me clear up any misinterpretation: The Democrats’ god is GREED. Their idol is MONEY. Expanding governmental control of the populace by legislation is their CREED. It is the Democrats’ “plantation mentality I find reprehensible.

As for our founding fathers, you would be greatly surprised to find that some of them, most notably Thomas Jefferson and even John Adams, were not guided by Christianity. Jefferson, in fact, had many writing that prove him to have been decidedly atheistic. Do you think that the "separation doctrine" came from those most steeped in their superstitions
No, Amendment I of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” which you refer to as the separation doctrine, was passed to ensure our Republic could not be subverted to a Theocracy among other safeguards. I’m pretty certain that has more to do with the founding fathers experiences with events in England at the time more than their collective religious beliefs.

And to say that voting third party is a waste is the single biggest bullsh*t statement anyone can possibly make concerning elections. I'm supposed to vote for someone that I despise, from a party that I despise, just to make my vote count? That is simply moronic.
Like it or not we have a two party system in this country. You are ‘free to vote’* for the candidate of your choice (or not vote at all). However, voting for third party candidates in an election they cannot win only serves the winning candidate. It’s best to use your ONE political vote as efficiently as possible. Why would you think making your vote NOT count is intelligent?
*I regard at voting as an obligation of citizenship, not merely a freedom of choice.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Where did I use the word “Atheist” in my previous post? While you and I might agree that most (if not all) Atheists are guided by some set of principles; and that the Bible thumpers are giving the Christian majority a bad name. Let me clear up any misinterpretation: The Democrats’ god is GREED. Their idol is MONEY. Expanding governmental control of the populace by legislation is their CREED. It is the Democrats’ “plantation mentality I find reprehensible.

The fashion in which you replied to my post led me to believe you were harping on atheists. I accede the point. However, you are fooling yourself if you think that Republicans are less motivated by greed. Why, you could substitute one for the other in your screed and you'll find plenty of people on either side of the aisle to agree with you. I would agree on either case.


Like it or not we have a two party system in this country. You are ‘free to vote’* for the candidate of your choice (or not vote at all). However, voting for third party candidates in an election they cannot win only serves the winning candidate. It’s best to use your ONE political vote as efficiently as possible. Why would you think making your vote NOT count is intelligent?
*I regard at voting as an obligation of citizenship, not merely a freedom of choice.

That's just a bunch of whiny, patronizing nonsense. We have an elective process that allows multiple parties to participate. It is only "two party" because it happened to work out that way. My one vote cannot be used efficiently, as you put it, if I have no agreement with either candidate. Should I not vote, then? Of course I should still vote. So why should I accede to your wish that I vote for your candidate just because you are afraid of a third party coming in to spoil things? I want that to happen. To me, it makes no difference whether McCain or Obama wins. I think we're screwed either way. Thankfully, I have the freedom to cast my vote, be it protest or sincere support for a third party. That last thing it is is a waste, because I vote my conscience. And as far as anyone should be concerned, that's all that matters. It's more than I can say for many voters who are merely lemmings.

[Slider]

I'll vote for a candidate guided by the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding fathers versus a candidate with no moral compass at all - EVERY TIME.

I guess I'll weigh in. Really, I was avoiding this.

Judeo-Christian versus a candidate with no moral compass. If that doesnt't lay it out, there's not much more that discussion could accomplish. Unbreakable has a lock on morality, it seems.


Think about it. Bush's Christian value set was his guide when he tried to halt stem cell research. But he only succeeded in slowing its advance. Like it or not, at least he had a belief that he took a stand on.

Versus, I guess, the morality in trying find a cure for disease. Again, your morality RULES, man.


Now take the current financial crisis. How many Democrats decried the urgings of the President for tighter oversight of Fannie and Freddie? Who now among those same Democrats is claiming they knew this crisis was coming, and blame Republicans for stonewalling the $700 billion solution.

Seems like you think Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae played a major role in the current crisis. If you don't understand the minor part they played, you have no clue. Challenge me on this.


One excellent example is Rep. Barney Frank.

Blah blah blah. There was nothing that any committee in Congress could do without the full support of the Republicans through 2006. If you don't think it was deregulation, again, you haven't got a clue.


Sadly, it appears that on Election Day we will continue our slide toward a nation of Babel.

Gee, Babel. Must be one of those Biblical references. I understand why you identify with it.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

... It is only "two party" because it happened to work out that way.
When has a third party made a consistent impact? If you vote for fringe candidates who come and go as they do (who complained that the Libertarians sold out by going with Bob Barr?), no third party will never break the stranglehold corporate money has on the other two.


... My one vote cannot be used efficiently, as you put it, if I have no agreement with either candidate. Should I not vote, then? Of course I should still vote. So why should I accede to your wish that I vote for your candidate just because you are afraid of a third party coming in to spoil things?
I rather like the idea of a third party. Given that it has not happened yet (nationally), and with declining voter participation, I don't see it ever happening. More likely that the Democratic Party will devolve to the Socialist Party and the Republicans to the Cocktail Party.

[Al the repoman]

i know i may come off as a warmonger.. but this is the way i see it, we are a country at war wether u agree upon that war is niether here nor there.. we are at war wether u like it or not.. and i being a member who doesnt really have a choice am part of this war (national guard) and my chain of command takes orders from our president. i want a guy whos been in my shoes before who can see me for what i am not just a soldier. i like mccain for really that large reason he was in war (a pilot i know but also a p.o.w) obama.. hm yeah thinks he raised up from the gettoh (id really hate to see this war turn into opperation gettho storm)... but another point is to all who are against this war and whom keep saying bring our troops home is an insult to us. and if they ever talked to a soldier whos been there? i know no they have not. we support this war we have lost alot of men and to turn around now and just go oh well and shrug our soldiers would be an insult to every soldier in every war and i find that to be a little ludicris! so iv said time and time again if u havent been there please do us that have and st*u.. sry about that lil rant just still erks me.
never forget, never surrender,we need to be unwaivered and steadfast. the only way to trully prevail ontop.
(what ever happened to the true american spirit?)

[Mr_Cheeze]

Seems like you think Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae played a major role in the current crisis. If you don't understand the minor part they played, you have no clue. Challenge me on this.

There was nothing that any committee in Congress could do without the full support of the Republicans through 2006. If you don't think it was deregulation, again, you haven't got a clue.


Not so fast: http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=5&issue=20081029

[Mr_Cheeze]

When has a third party made a consistent impact? If you vote for fringe candidates who come and go as they do (who complained that the Libertarians sold out by going with Bob Barr?), no third party will never break the stranglehold corporate money has on the other two.


I rather like the idea of a third party. Given that it has not happened yet (nationally), and with declining voter participation, I don't see it ever happening. More likely that the Democratic Party will devolve to the Socialist Party and the Republicans to the Cocktail Party.


You make little to no sense whatsoever. You complain about the two parties, yet say that it is our obligation to give them our vote, no matter how bitter the taste. Then you say that you like third parties... just don't vote for them.

Dude, sort out your reasoning and get back to me.

[Slider]

Not so fast: http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=5&issue=20081029

Fannie and Freddie came late to the game of buying mortgage backed securities. All the major mortgage providers we well down the path. FNMA didn't help, but they're just a piece of the puzzle. The other lenders were free to overextend themselves due to relaxation of the capitalization requirements that came with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act f 1999.

Now, I am not saying that both parties didn't play a role, just that sub-prime lending was well underway before FNMA joined in. And the fact that they did join in would be impossible without Republican support, since the party controlled both Houses and voted as a bloc on virtually all major issues.

As for the IBD editorial, it is pretty slanted. Take this quote:
----

Confident the American people are primed for his brand of "change," Obama maintained his anti-capitalist theme.

"What we have seen in the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed."

According to Obama, capitalism has been "rendered . . . a colossal failure."
----

Obama, of course, never claimed that capitalism was a failure. He was referring to deregulation. IBD seems to equate that with socialism, which is pure BS.

They also harp on the 'redistribution' theme that McCain's Rovedogs told him to focus on. Tax burden is tax burden. Who pays what share is constantly shifting. For eight years we've seen the wealthy get richer on the backs of the rest of us. Addressing that is right and necessary, not 'redistribution'. It's sound fiscal policy.

Slider

[kernel crash]

They also harp on the 'redistribution' theme that McCain's Rovedogs told him to focus on. Tax burden is tax burden. Who pays what share is constantly shifting. For eight years we've seen the wealthy get richer on the backs of the rest of us. Addressing that is right and necessary, not 'redistribution'. It's sound fiscal policy.

Slider

You just can't stop with the Rove thing. You really think McCain needs Rove to tell him to hit Obama on his spread the wealth message? I mean we have Joe the freaken plumber saying it. Do you look under your bed every night to see if Rove is there? Just wondering. As far as the wealthy getting richer on the backs of the rest of us, not sure what to make of that. I'm doing better than I ever have and nobody is riding my back. You sound like Obama looking for somebody to blame for your circumstances.

Hey if Obama gets elected and I don't think thats a sure thing right now, I'm going to enjoy watching him fall back on all those promises. It will be quite entertaining. Yep. I'll be here to say I told you so. I'll also be listening to see how far you bend over to defend him.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Fannie and Freddie came late to the game of buying mortgage backed securities. All the major mortgage providers we well down the path. FNMA didn't help, but they're just a piece of the puzzle. The other lenders were free to overextend themselves due to relaxation of the capitalization requirements that came with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act f 1999.

Now, I am not saying that both parties didn't play a role, just that sub-prime lending was well underway before FNMA joined in. And the fact that they did join in would be impossible without Republican support, since the party controlled both Houses and voted as a bloc on virtually all major issues.

As for the IBD editorial, it is pretty slanted. Take this quote:
----

Confident the American people are primed for his brand of "change," Obama maintained his anti-capitalist theme.

"What we have seen in the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed."

According to Obama, capitalism has been "rendered . . . a colossal failure."
----

Obama, of course, never claimed that capitalism was a failure. He was referring to deregulation. IBD seems to equate that with socialism, which is pure BS.

They also harp on the 'redistribution' theme that McCain's Rovedogs told him to focus on. Tax burden is tax burden. Who pays what share is constantly shifting. For eight years we've seen the wealthy get richer on the backs of the rest of us. Addressing that is right and necessary, not 'redistribution'. It's sound fiscal policy.

Slider

While I agree that the article's author has an obvious bias, I think he makes a persuasive argument showing that those entities in question definitely had more than, as you stated, a minor role in the financial crisis. You seem to want to blame most of the crisis on Republican policy. And you have to admit that you are pretty much slanted in the opposite direction, so excuse me if I reserve some grains of salt for both arguments. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. Barney Frank and other Democrats have already finally admitted their lack of foresight. Except that I don't quite buy they honestly there either. It is another social experiment gone awry. But you Democrats can't help yourselves from constantly believing that social justice is both a priority for the government, and "sound fiscal policy". That kind of thinking got us into this mess.

I'm not dismissing the Bush administration's hand in this gigantic mess, either.

[Slider]

You just can't stop with the Rove thing. You really think McCain needs Rove to tell him to hit Obama on his spread the wealth message? I mean we have Joe the freaken plumber saying it. Do you look under your bed every night to see if Rove is there? Just wondering. As far as the wealthy getting richer on the backs of the rest of us, not sure what to make of that. I'm doing better than I ever have and nobody is riding my back. You sound like Obama looking for somebody to blame for your circumstances.

Hey if Obama gets elected and I don't think thats a sure thing right now, I'm going to enjoy watching him fall back on all those promises. It will be quite entertaining. Yep. I'll be here to say I told you so. I'll also be listening to see how far you bend over to defend him.

Just in case you missed it, McCain brought in all the Bush advisors once he started to slip in the polls. We had this discussion before. They ARE the McCain financial strategy. Rove is the person who was Bush's principal advisor when the McCain team was first assembled. Rove's handiwork is all over it. He couldn't have chosen a worse approach, including the tax cuts for the rich and the smear campaign that's being used to advance it. Unfortunately for McCain, it is precisely what the voters seem to be rejecting.

I'd be in the sector that will pay more under the Obama tax plan, so bad guess.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Barney Frank and other Democrats have already finally admitted their lack of foresight.

Ahh, not quite. Have you seen Barney Franks latest campaign ad on TV? Why he's only been head of the house banking sub committee for a couple of years now, and the republicans have been beating up on him while he was trying to fix this whole mess. He think were too stupid to remember the video we saw just last week showing him telling regulators that Fannie and Freddie were in good shape and talk of regulation would stifle home ownership for people who were living on park benches.

[Slider]

While I agree that the article's author has an obvious bias, I think he makes a persuasive argument showing that those entities in question definitely had more than, as you stated, a minor role in the financial crisis. You seem to want to blame most of the crisis on Republican policy. And you have to admit that you are pretty much slanted in the opposite direction, so excuse me if I reserve some grains of salt for both arguments. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. Barney Frank and other Democrats have already finally admitted their lack of foresight. Except that I don't quite buy they honestly there either. It is another social experiment gone awry. But you Democrats can't help yourselves from constantly believing that social justice is both a priority for the government, and "sound fiscal policy". That kind of thinking got us into this mess.

I'm not dismissing the Bush administration's hand in this gigantic mess, either.

And I am not making the argument that the Dems, pushing for more home ownership, didn't play a role. I am saying that the act that allowed the banks to overextend themselves was the deregulation of the banking industry. It set up all that followed, and without it we wouldn't have seen the recent cascade of failures.

Legislation trails the market by many months, and even years. Derivitives were new and no one really know what they implied. Turns out they are a house of cards and it is falling now. It is time to rein the financial industry waaaay back in. That isn't socialism or anti-capitalism, just common sense.

Markets ALWAYS require regulation. One strong monopoly can make us all serfs in no time. There are good reasons for anti-monopoly laws, just like there are good reasons to require lenders to maintain adequate reserves in case their collateral suddenly plummets in value.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

This 60 Minutes piece sheds more light on the issue, and pretty much puts the mortgage crisis at the epicenter of the market collapse. It's only 13 minutes long and well worth the watch.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4546583n

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ahh, not quite. Have you seen Barney Franks latest campaign ad on TV? Why he's only been head of the house banking sub committee for a couple of years now, and the republicans have been beating up on him while he was trying to fix this whole mess. He think were too stupid to remember the video we saw just last week showing him telling regulators that Fannie and Freddie were in good shape and talk of regulation would stifle home ownership for people who were living on park benches.

The timeline in that proves that Frank's hands got dirty way back in the 80s.

[Unbreakable]

You need to look at the bigger picture. Sure a third party would benefit the country. It's another viewpoint. Certainly, a viewpoint the hacks already feeding at the public trough would not be willing to tolerate. Why not? There only 538 seats for corporations to buy off. Shouldn't make any diff who occupies them Right? But to the two parties already sharing, divvying the pie into thirds (vs. halves) is a tough pill to swallow. Do you really think either party is willing to sacrifice part of their "share"?
And so I vote the lesser of two (call em what you want).

[Slappy]

You need to look at the bigger picture. Sure a third party would benefit the country. It's another viewpoint. Certainly, a viewpoint the hacks already feeding at the public trough would not be willing to tolerate. Why not? There only 538 seats for corporations to buy off. Shouldn't make any diff who occupies them Right? But to the two parties already sharing, divvying the pie into thirds (vs. halves) is a tough pill to swallow. Do you really think either party is willing to sacrifice part of their "share"?
And so I vote the lesser of two (call em what you want).

Though the chance of a third party president anytime soon is unlikely, more third party representaton doesn't have to be. Momentum takes building...people talk 'change'...real change isn't gonna come from the established parties and you all know it. Start shaking **** up yo. :rad: