Y'all better vote for Obama! — Page 2

Of course I don't think it is wrong for one candidate to raise more money than the other. I actually don't think very highly of public money being used to fund campaigns at all, but that is a different discussion...

Jay said:

You're naiive.

There are plenty of idiots who think Obama is a Muslim terrorist trying to infiltrate the White House simply because he's dark-skinned and has a foreign-sounding name, so speakers emphasize that middle name strongly and repeatedly at their froth-mouthed rallies because they want to illicit an irrational response from the fearful, angry red sheep. Take a speechmaking/communications course and then watch these people and how they address the crowds. Listen to their words and how they attack the man; it's rarely based on his policies. The focus is on Obama being a friend of terrorists, a big question mark, a socialist, a Marxist, an unpatriotic man who is against America and its ideals. It's right in your face whether you choose to see it or not.

McCain has run one of the lowest, most desperate campaigns in the history of presidential elections by adopting the same tactics of misinformation and fear used by Bush, and with any luck, he'll be rewarded properly once all the votes are tallied.

In my mind I'm not being naive, but as accurate as I can be. To that end, I have already been considering the fact that this country is filled with fools that allow themselves to believe silly nonsense. I just don't see one ounce of evidence that anyone in the mainstream is knowingly trying to deceive anyone for political gain. (I could be wrong, but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)

First, as far as I have seen, most Republican leaders and conservative leaders have been avoiding and discouraging people from attacking Obama over his middle name (not clearly, of course, but it's not as if they're out to defend Obama either). The mainstream groups of people who are mentioning "Hussein" (at rallies or in arguments that support McCain) are ones that believe it's a winning approach because they actually think it's relevant. I believe that's unfair, stupid, and often nasty on their part, but as far as I can tell those people are sincere and aren't trying to lie to anyone.

What I am certain you have been seeing from the mainstream supporters of John McCain (and attributing dark, conspiratorial intentions to) is genuine, out-in-the-open distrust and dislike. They blow the issue of Obama's name way out of proportion for the sake of other concerns that are legitimate by comparison. For instance, from a purely objective standpoint, Obama's name betrays a heritage and upbringing that might contain values that are foreign to a lot of Americans and many, in light of the fact that they are apposed to him, will naturally twist that for the sake of politics. As an obvious result, in their minds, small fears become certain threats and mysterious pasts become the possibility of dark plans to "enslave" America. There's nothing more to it than this, really. For the most part these people are rational human beings, but they have parts of themselves which go crazy from time to time (which we all do).

Otherwise, the true kooks of our society are too insignificant and too disconnected. There's nothing to be gained by manipulating such a statistically irrelevant portion of the undecided electorate when they already come to their crazy conclusions without politicians pushing them there like cattle. In other words, those who are totally into the "Hussein" issue are paranoid people in the first place that will generally find sources of information that match their fears all on their own. Most of them are already in line with "right-wingers" or "conservatives" (assuming they're not so crazy and fearful that they won't even vote at all). The few, remaining, "Hussein" kooks in our society that would have otherwise been "undecided" are an incredibly tiny portion and not worth worrying about.


A truthful concern must be based upon evidence and I think you're showing me that not very concerned with evidence when you don't want to be. While McCain has definitely run one of the most dumbed-down campaigns that I can remember (partly because he's so dumb himself), it has not been "one of the lowest, most desperate campaigns in the history of presidential elections" as you say. That statement is one that is very ignorant of American history and rather unfair to John McCain (who has generally given Obama a lot of respect when not voicing genuine concerns regarding "judgement" as he would call it). However, because you appose John McCain, it becomes clear as to why you'd claim something so far-fetched: you actively try to see the worst of intentions and desires in the guy apposed to your guy. Likewise, I think we can conclude that you're seeing evil lies coming from diabolical people (when there's no evidence of that), because you want to distrust and malign people you disagree with. All people make this kind of mistake all the time and you shouldn't be so quick to distrust people who are, in reality, being motivated by similar fears and dislikes.


Anyways, the scariest lies in society are not the ones that come from and affect the fringe of the arguments in our minds or the people on the fringe of society. They are the ones that people speak openly as primary concerns and the ones that motivate large groups of people to support horrible injustices. Lies supporting irrational, class warfare and other behaviors that hurt the innocent come to my mind first. I don't see any fear generated by Obama's name rising to that level of threat anytime soon. At most it's a piece of nonsense that complicates clear thinking and I mostly appose it on that basis.

I'm not sure why Obama hasn't more clearly fought to dispell the nonsense surrounding his name more soundly. Generally, one thing that's better about him than McCain is his slightly greater willingness to openly talk about issues and take things on directly. However, strangely, when it comes to his name and his upbringing, he goes out of his way to hide them both. He's obviously afraid that people will be swayed negatively by an open discussion of these things and that really bugs me. It shows that when he doesn't have talking points being fed to him, he's a man that is just as intellectually clumsy and fearful as McCain if not even more so.

Race is an issue people would like to ovoid but it is an issue.  We are at war with Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.  People have a fear of having someone with a Muslim name and looks like a muslim during these times.  Would it not have been similar during world war II have a japanese or German sounding name and looking like the face of the enemy?

Is if fair no i would say not.  But people cannot take a chance that he might be a communist plant or a islamic radical, or at least has any ties to these things at all.

As racist as it is White people did not fly those planes into the buildings on 911 so americans feel safer voting for someone who does not have dark skin.

To me personally The fact that he is a malado or comes from mixed heritage has nothing to do with who i vote for.  Even if his middle name makes him seem to be related to Saddam that is not why i would not vote for him.

His very ideas are the same as those the Russians imposed on their people during the cold war that is why i will vote for McCain.

Our enemies are hoping for an Obama prisidency because they want the downfall of the west.  We don't need to talk to terrorist nations or terrorist states that Harbor ill will and want to kill americans and our allies.

We have always sent a clear message not to sit down and have nogosiations with terorrists.  Obama would set a bad trend by doing so.  One of the dumbest things Clinton ever did was try something similar with North Korea and because of that Americans or Jews could be nuked from the face of the Earth.  They have Nuclear capability and it happened on Both Clinton and Bush's watch.

Actually my statement about not Nogosiating with terorists seems to be in Error.  Generally it is Democrats who have no such problems.  Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton all did this mistaken thing.

The enemy understands and repects fear and force.  They will see us as sheep to their being wolves if we sit down with them.  Also this gives them the advantage.  The thing that needs to be done and bring the terrorists to their knees and then unconditional surrender like we did with Japan.  okay i'm not saying we need to nuke Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea.  We also have enemies in the chinese and the russians.

Good god if Bush actually went after the so called "axis of evil" we would be at war with most of the world, truly scary.  Also our once allies are one step away from Turning traitor.  and have been called Traitors by the Us mainly the French.

That being said i am not against Diplomacy with Terms and conditions.  Depends on what these very things mean. 

So Obama has Christian teaching on his side when he wants to make peace with our enemies.  "Blessed are the peacemakers because they shall be called children of God"

Good Luck most Americans will believe the guy is a muslim even if he professes faith in Christ and is a baptist.   If Obama would actually talk about Religion, about Christianity and make a case for the end of the war and economic return to normalcy i would vote for him.  So far i have heard nothing at all of the kind out of his mouth.

Is he pro choice It is against Christian teaching to be so.  Many have been kicked out of the Church for that.

I truly believe the Christians were the deciding Factor in the Last election and that Kerry Could have won if he had only been Pro life.  I would have voted for him if he was as that was the Deciding factor for me voting for Bush.  Supposedlly Millions of Christian Vote went to Bush.  Kerry could have done what democrats normally do and lie or flip flop, but at least he was honest with the people of this country over his beliefs.  Whether that belief got his excommunicated form the Catholic Church he worshipped at is another thing altogether.

I would ask Americans what does Liberty and its definition mean to them.  Muslims and people of all walks of life etc deserve to be treated equal.  Regardless of Race, creed, Religion or sexual preference.

The forefathers may have not intended for the "  all Men are created equal"  to extend to Black people and Woman but i believe strongly in the newer adoption that does include them.

I also believe in the pledge of allegiance it says "with Liberty and Justice for all".  Not for the few.  I am wholheartedly against the racial stereotyping of American Muslims and Believe this Practice by the homeland defense should stop.

I may not  agree with someone elses beliefs but also my beliefs are neither recognized or denied under american Law because of seperation of church and state.  Similarly to how you may get married in a Church before god.   The state  does not care for any silly belief as they call it, only the legal Marriage License is recognized.   Nor can one be in state or Federal Government Let their holy book or religion Determine their actions there, only The contitution matters.

American Citicen's who are Relgious can vote based on their faith, even though it is supposed to be against the constitutional laws.   It is kind of a contradiction.  You have freedom of speech and religion to do vote your choice, even though they would prefer it if people knew more about the consitution than they did the bible, the Koran, torah. whatever.

I remember years ago reading a comment Joseph Campbell said.  He said we had lost our liberty by rejoining the greater british empire and in our expansion we became an empire to conquer the world.

So according to him the colonials with the french's help freed us from the british for nothing.

This is like during the 1980's.  i wish i could find the direct quote.

Anybody who saw the Batman movie with the wiretapping phone listening knows what  Liberty is.  lol

Jay said:

And the "Osama" thing is the most ridiculous part of your conspiracy theory.

You're naiive.

There are plenty of idiots who think Obama is a Muslim terrorist trying to infiltrate the White House simply because he's dark-skinned and has a foreign-sounding name, so speakers emphasize that middle name strongly and repeatedly at their froth-mouthed rallies because they want to illicit an irrational response from the fearful, angry red sheep.

Uhh, okay. I guess pretty much anyone with low enough intellectual capacity not to vote for Obama is pretty naive...

There are plenty of idiots out there who think Bush orchestrated 9-11. I guess you could say every time someone from the mainstream left emphasized the bad policies of G. W. Bush at their froth-mouthed rallies, it was to make direct reference to Bush's masterminding Sep. 11, right? 

Come on, who is being naive? I've no doubt there are kooks who freak out about Obama's middle name, but let's just write them off the same as we do the kooks who go around yelling "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel!!".

Nobody with a quarter of a brain is going to give credence to shit like that, let's not even try to pretend that is the mainstreams, at least not until you can give me a convincing video to prove it, are actually doing as you claim. Stop pretending it is some major right wing tactic being employed, there are so many other issues here to worry about other than his middle name. It is unfortunate that people from outside the united states, like MrBrown, think that this whole thing is only about race and religion. The mainsteam opponents of Obama are looking at the issues, the mainstream proponents of Obama seem to be content to ignore the real issues and write off all opponents as sheep of some sort or another. Nobody wants to be called a sheep, I am sure being called a sheep is enough to make anyone change their ways and get in line to unquestioningly follow the masses... wait a minute!....

Anyway, buttom line is, it is you pro Obama guys that brought up the issues of his name sounding like Osama, his being black, and his middle name being Hussein. None of us who are against him ever brought it up. 

Obama's middle name is a funny coincidence people will joke about, every president/presidential candidate gets made fun of for something, is Obama going to be off limits? Boring four years a head of us then... Most of these guys just shake it off, yeah, yeah, that's funny that's funny, let's move on. Obama and his supporters respond with offense! Guy needs to grow some skin if he is going to be president. It is only his middle name!

Mhm..on the Obama / Osama thing:

http://www.congratstothewinners.com/2008/10/waterboard-barack-obama.html

and

http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2008/10/republican-chief-links-obama-and-osama.html

and

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/15/gop-site-california-removes-waterboard-obama-graphic/

for an example.

Think about it:

Its a point even someone in Germany knows about this vote that in republican corner (maybe not Mr McCain himself, but in the republican corner)... well... I don't feel positive.

To the racist point: maybe you are not a racist, maybe I am not a racist, but the fact is: there are to much racists in the world. And don't try to tell me, that America is free of racists, this is something I won't belief.

EDIT:

And:

I don't belief that its MAINLY a question of religion, skin color or gender, but racism is still a problem even in this vote.

As far as i know the Ayers thing is guilt by association. 

It is like if you drove your friend up to rob a bank, and you only drove the car and stole nothing still Guilty by association.

You could talk all day about Bush's ties and associations, but i don't see the point because he is on the way out.  He is not running.  Had a documentary Like farenheit 911 been produced before Bush was ever president Maybe he would not get elected.  The documentary made claims Bush family has ties to Osama's family, there we go with the guilt by association again.

The Barack osama thing i thought was a Romney thing. 

I guess he thought he was being funny i don't know.

Kind of reminds me of his tar baby remarks about MA.  Once is a mistake, twice you are a racist.  I believe that is the consensus.

Is it any wonder his Liutenant Governor Healey lost Against Deval Patrick an outspoken supporter of Obama.

Healey was not racist as far as i am concerned but her ties to mitt who some call "mutt" cost her.

Of course Mrbrown Racism is an issue.  What do you expect Obama is the first African American to ever run for President and receive the nomination of either party. He may be half white, half black.  Does not matter to me.  as long as he was really born in Hawaii then he is an American end of story. 

One thing you don't hear about are the racist Black People.  I bet you anything there are those who are against him for being a malado and not pure black heritage.  Their are racist black people as well as white people.

I am sure the Racism would insult Martin Luther King if he was still with us.  He would be quite pleased though with the giant leap forward of a African American being viewed as equal to a white man in the presidential race.   equality was something king fought for and died for. Because an Obama can run people should be proud to be American.  MLK's sacrifice was not in vain.

Martin Luther King should have been the first Black President, perhaps in fear of this he was shot dead.  Though he was a man of god and not a politician.  He put his faith into action it was more than just words.

That report is about one small branch (a single county branch) of the Republican party, and when the state GOP found out about it they told them to get rid of that. I am not saying that some people have not sunk to those levels, I am just saying that you cannot throw this onto all of us. While some have been irresponsible with crap like this, many others have not. Don't be fooled into thinking this is thought of as any sort of a legitimate reason not to support Barack by any sort of significant number of those who don't.

Also MrBrown, I am not saying that there are not racists in America, unfortunately there are, and of course they are against Obama, but that does not mean that all who are against Obama are racists. Not even anything like the majority of those against Obama are racist.

This whole thread seems to be trying to make the case that there are no legitimate reasons not to back Obama. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems there is a very low opinion of anyone who is not going to vote for Obama, because they are only not supporting him because they are brainwashed Republican scums or racists.

IF I would live in USA, I would vote for Obama. But that would be my decision.

In Germany, I didn't vote for the actual "Bundeskanzler" Angela Merkel, not because she's a women, but because of her political party shes in. I just don't like the Christ-Democrats and the political program...

Sure I don't say "every" or "most" not even "much" of the americans are racists, because to stete such a thing I had to talk to everyone, to get theire "opinion", but I say that there is a -> possibility <- that there are enough to decide the election. Maybe I am wrong, and I am just seeing to dark.

But its certain that there are SOME racist voices, and maybe it is just the media which make them look more than theire really are. (I would hope so.)

There are enough reasons to vote for McCain. But, to be true and honor, I would say, to chose between TWO politicans (not specified) is always a bit like vote between pest and cholera.. at last they are BOTH politicals.

EDIT:

We both (C3PX and me) should stop arguing, and hope best for everybody this election. I think in the most important points we agree. ;)

and my english is not that well to really do a political discussion, and it COULd happen that I utter something thats understood wrong, and I want to avoid that. Okay?

I says things like that because you use terms like "right wing nutjob". Any type of critism for Obama that anyone has brought up has been treated that way. At the suggestion that Obama is socialist you guys basically say that it is not true and it is sheepery to believe so. I was commenting on the general nature of your (plural) posts, not just yours (singuar) Jay.

I not trying to argue with you MrBrown, I was actually speaking more to the other guys. I lived outside of the US for many years, and I know that even by watching the news everyday you never really know how things actually are over here. I just think it is ashame if you buy that his name and his race as the biggest reasons Americans wont vote for him. In the end he is very much a socialist. To people in Europe this is not that big of a deal, as Europe has a much stronger socialistic mentality than the US. But many of us in America are very legitimately against socialism, and that above all else is why I would not vote for the man. A LOT of Americans feel this way about socialism. Also, He and Biden both are for some pretty severe gun control, another thing a lot of us wont stand for, these guys would throw out the second amendment if they could.

You can bet if he looses today, headlines in the newspapers would announce things such as "Racist Americans Win Election". That isn't really fair, because there are many other reasons not to support him. In fact, if he was a white guy, with the exact same charisma, policies, and campaign finds, he would be nowhere near as far as he is now. I think his race as a benefit and a determent pretty much equal out.

C3PX said:

Also, He and Biden both are for some pretty severe gun control, another thing a lot of us wont stand for, these guys would throw out the second amendment if they could.

 

For the Gun Control, now a little "joke" I just read on a button:

"Gun Control is being able to hit your taget."

---

Let's say so: I feel quite good without owning a gun.

If it would be harder to gat a gun in America (especially getting a gun illegal), it would be not so neccessar to own a gun.

It is a bad thing that people get killed in not well stored private weapons. Its ashame that people get killed in rage-runs... (not only in USA, but in Germany, Finnland and so on...) Let me give you this to think about:

If you would know you live in a save country, why you should need a gun? Or is it just the "I just want a gun, because its my right to have a gun!" ?

Okay, In Germany ts very, extremely unusual to own a gun legal, because its not easy to get one. Well as I said before, I feel save enough without a gun.

C3PX said:

You can bet if he looses today, headlines in the newspapers would announce things such as "Racist Americans Win Election". That isn't really fair, because there are many other reasons not to support him. In fact, if he was a white guy, with the exact same charisma, policies, and campaign finds, he would be nowhere near as far as he is now. I think his race as a benefit and a determent pretty much equal out.

Let's see the votings tonight, and the news tomorrow.

Oh come on guys.  Obama has raised the most money ever of any candidate.

I never said he didn't. I'm just making the point that when Pro-McCain folks single out Obama for all the money he's raised and spent, they are ignoring the historical fact that, up until now, Republicans have historically been ever more guilty of such "attrocities". All of a sudden, it's a problem? Give me a break.

Obama is not a saviour.

The discussion was about campaign funds....so what's the point of this comment?

I just don't see one ounce of evidence that anyone in the mainstream is knowingly trying to deceive anyone for political gain. (I could be wrong, but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)

Winning an election comes to mind...

Come on, who is being naive? I've no doubt there are kooks who freak out about Obama's middle name

...

Anyway, buttom line is, it is you pro Obama guys that brought up the issues of his name sounding like Osama, his being black, and his middle name being Hussein. None of us who are against him ever brought it up.

Soooooo......you admit people are using his middle name for nefarious purposes......but also claim that pro-Obama people are the problem? That's called putting the cart before the horse. Do you also think the Jews are responsible for the Holocaust because they keep talking about it?

Obama and his supporters respond with offense! Guy needs to grow some skin if he is going to be president. It is only his middle name!

It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama can "shake it off". it simply illustrates the low levels that Republicans will stoop to in order to win a presidential campaign. Obama's not going to change his name, but Republicans should consider changing their practices if they want to win future elections. Even Ed Rollins, an ardent McCain backer, has said the Republicans have a loooooong history of such political practices. Several states have had phone calls and fliers targeted to Democrats telling them that they are supposed to vote on Nov. 5, instead of Nov. 4. Imagine that - wanting to disenfranchise huge numbers of Americans from even voting.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/04/obama-supporters-targeted-in-bogus-messages/

And as to the party, itself, doing this:

As we conclude, I thought it was interesting, in your report, Republican officials, as you said, challenging 6,000 registered voters, among them a former Montana state rep., Kevin Furey, a first lieutenant in the Army Reserve, on the challenge list because he’s currently in New Jersey planning to deploy to Iraq. His quote: “It’s ironic, at the same time I’m about to return to Iraq to help build a democracy, that my own right to vote is being challenged at home for partisan purposes. These challenges are a blatant and offensive attempt to suppress the rights of voters.”

if you want folks to stop talking about the Republican tactics, then maybe someone needs to tell the Republicans to stop using such tactics. Seems the better idea, don'cha think?

At the suggestion that Obama is socialist you guys basically say that it is not true and it is sheepery to believe so.

Obama: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Palin: "And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans."

The problem, again, is that Republicans want to pretend that "Spread the wealth" automatically means socialism.....except, of course, when Palin says the very same thing!

Oh, and McCain voted for the biggest American government experiment in socialism ever when he voted for the bank bail-out bill.

The problem isn't whether you are a low-brow right-wing nutjob....but whether or not you believe and/or regurgitate the bullshit being slung around by obvious right-wing nutjobs. Unfortunately, it appears that you do.

Oh, and furthermore, the "expert" who described Obama's plan as socialism and a possible burden on his plumbing business - Joe the Plumber - has apparently changed his tune:

As ThinkProgress and many others noted yesterday, the premise of Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s complaints about Barack Obama’s tax plan was ill-informed. Contrary to Wurzelbacher’s claims, “neither his personal taxes nor those of the business where he works are likely to rise if Mr. Obama’s tax plan were to go into effect.”

As CBS News reported, even “Joe The Plumber” acknowledges this fact now:

So today, Joe, who said he makes much less than $250,000, reluctantly admitted Obama would lower his taxes.

“I would, if you believe him, I would be receiving his tax cuts,” Wurzelbacher said.

Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/17/joe-the-plumber-obama-cut/

Bloomberg reports that “one other problem in making Wurzelbacher a symbol of the overtaxed” is that — even if he did earn an adjusted gross income of $280,000 — “he would pay just $773 more in taxes under Obama’s plan than McCain’s.” That amount would hardly deal a crippling blow to his potential small business.

Last night, Sarah Palin said she didn’t want to talk about Wurzelbacher. “I begged our speechwriters, ‘Don’t make me say Joe the Plumber, please, in any speeches,” she said. After failing to properly vet Wurzelbacher’s situation, the McCain campaign is apparently now throwing him overboard and moving on.

The campaign is holding a conference call today with Russ Duker, an individual the McCain camp is calling “a Missouri ‘Joe the Plumber.’”

Though why people are looking to a plumber to explain national economics is beyond me....

MrBrown said:

Let's say so: I feel quite good without owning a gun.

If it would be harder to gat a gun in America (especially getting a gun illegal), it would be not so neccessar to own a gun.

It is a bad thing that people get killed in not well stored private weapons. Its ashame that people get killed in rage-runs... (not only in USA, but in Germany, Finnland and so on...) Let me give you this to think about:

If you would know you live in a save country, why you should need a gun? Or is it just the "I just want a gun, because its my right to have a gun!" ?

Okay, In Germany ts very, extremely unusual to own a gun legal, because its not easy to get one. Well as I said before, I feel save enough without a gun.

MrBrown, you have some quite good points, I get where you are coming from, but again, it is difficult for you to understand major political issues in America like gun control, because you do not live here. It is just a very different political setting and background that that of Germany or Europe. To most people owning a gun is not so much for protection, but it is more of a hobby, target practice, collecting, and hunting. 

We also have a good deal of people who live out in some pretty remote places, or out in the country. In these places you will find that just about everyone owns a gun, knows well how to use them, and couldn't imagine life without them, yet gun crime in these areas are extremely rare. Next, turn to inner city areas and slums, where just about everyone will talk about how evil guns are. It is in these areas that very few people own guns and yet this is where drive by shootings and lots of gun crime takes place.

It is not that I sleep with my gun under my pillow to feel safe. My guns are kept securely locked away in a safe. The likelihood of someone breaking into my home while me and my family are at home is highly unlikely. If such a senario were to take place, I would probably grab my gun, but I'd really hope I would not have to use it.

America was designed to be tyrant proof. As a nation of men and women who escaped persecution from government, many checks and balances were well thought out to protect us from becoming a tyranical government ourselves. One of these checks is the second amendment rights for citizens to have arms. The idea is that if the government "goes bad" the citizens can organize militias to defend themselves. Times have of course changed, now that we have moved beyond a gun and mortor era, it is unlikely citizens could stand up so well against the military. The fact of the matter is, gun crime is not often commited by legally obtained arms. Background checks and such would make it very difficult for many of these types to aquire weapons legally. The vast majority of people who own guns are very responsible with them, and use them for harmless means.

Background checks and such would make it very difficult for many of these types to aquire weapons legally.

But not impossible. A responsible American citizen with a clean criminal history is not, in any way, being deprived of their right to own a weapon in this scenario.

Unless, of course, you are in favor of people with problematic criminal or mental histories having easier access to firearms?

Mebejedi said:
"Soooooo......you admit people are using his middle name for nefarious purposes......but also claim that pro-Obama people are the problem? That's called putting the cart before the horse. Do you also think the Jews are responsible for the Holocaust because they keep talking about it?"

No, I said that there are idiots who are freaking out about his middle name, I can't control that anymore than you can, this cannot be reflected on all Republicans as a whole. No more than the Democratic party can control crazies who go around saying that George Bush masterminded 9-11. This isn't putting the cart before the horse, my point was in this particular discussion, you guys brought up his middle name. I think it is a non-issue, yet you guys have us pointlessly discussing it. I said I thought it was retarded to use his name against him, we seem like we are in agreement over this, yet for some fucking dumb reason we are still discussin this. Why? The people who use his middle name against him are the equivalents of right wing Michael Moores and are not worth fucking around with. This does not reflect non-Obama supporters as a whole.

And are you seriously still debating whether or not Obama's ideas are Marxist? Have you not been listening to a word the guy says? He is very obviously a Marxist. A better approach would be for you to defend Marxism, which would be perfectly legitimate. Also your use of Palin's talking about how Alaska shares in the wealth of money that comes from the use of Alaska's resources has absolutely nothing to do any sort of socialism. How are you even pretending it does?

As for why we are listening to a plumber on economics, that whole plumber thing was retarded, both McCain's campaign and the mainstream media blew that thing out of proportion and missed the whole point. The whole point was Obama's response and NOTHING more. "Joe the Plumber" and what he thinks and who he is has NEVER mattered.

Mebejedi said:

"The problem isn't whether you are a low-brow right-wing nutjob....but whether or not you believe and/or regurgitate the bullshit being slung around by obvious right-wing nutjobs. Unfortunately, it appears that you do."

See, that was exactly my point. Any criticism of Obama, regardless of how legitimate it is, is all regarded as right wing bullshit being slung around (even when it has nothing to do with the right). Not a bit of it is ever taken into consideration, even when it should be. If it could be so well refuted, then it wouldn't be simply disregarded as "right wing bullshit" that doesn't deserve refutation, and ignored. Truth has no fear of inquiry, so by the media simply responding to any questions with a "Pfft, begone right wing sheep!", regardless of who they are only stands to leaves those questions festering in peoples minds. People are smart, weight those questions out and refute them fairly, and people will dismiss them. Why isn't that happening?

MeBeJedi said:

Oh come on guys.  Obama has raised the most money ever of any candidate.

 

I never said he didn't. I'm just making the point that when Pro-McCain folks single out Obama for all the money he's raised and spent, they are ignoring the historical fact that, up until now, Republicans have historically been ever more guilty of such "attrocities". All of a sudden, it's a problem? Give me a break.

Try quoting my whole comment next time.  The problem isn't that he raised a ton of money.  The problem is that he said was going to stick with public financing until it became apparent that he was going to get a shit ton of money from donations.  If McCain had done this, people would be all over him for it.  But when Obama did it, it's "change".

 

Obama is not a saviour.

 

The discussion was about campaign funds....so what's the point of this comment?

The point is that Obama is being treated like the second coming of Christ.  "He's going to save us all" are some things I've read and heard.  Quite frankly I find it disgusting.  If you're depending on the government to save you that much then you have bigger problems.  The government isn't going to save you anymore now than they ever have.

He says he's going to give you a tax cut, but have you every considered that if you don't have a job you won't even be getting paid.

Personally, I think it's better when companies get tax breaks.  It makes it easier to get into those higher brackets.  But if you raise taxes on high incomes, it just makes it more difficult to get into a higher income bracket.

MeBeJedi said:

Background checks and such would make it very difficult for many of these types to aquire weapons legally.

But not impossible. A responsible American citizen with a clean criminal history is not, in any way, being deprived of their right to own a weapon in this scenario.

 

Unless, of course, you are in favor of people with problematic criminal or mental histories having easier access to firearms?

Holy shit did you ever not read my posts! I wasn't even trying to make a debate of any sort. I was explaining to MrBrown the way things work now, which I am very pleased with, and feel even a few more checks might not hurt. I am fully in favor of background checks, and could not agree more that people with criminal records or mental disorders should not have guns.

Instead of quoting things out of context, let's look at the whole sentence:

"The fact of the matter is, gun crime is not often committed by legally obtained arms. Background checks and such would make it very difficult for many of these types to acquire weapons legally. The vast majority of people who own guns are very responsible with them, and use them for harmless means."

MeBeJedi said:

Background checks and such would make it very difficult for many of these types to aquire weapons legally.

But not impossible. A responsible American citizen with a clean criminal history is not, in any way, being deprived of their right to own a weapon in this scenario.

A delay in a right is an infringement of a right.  We don't delay freedom of speech, so why do we allow the right to own a gun to be delayed?  States like Arizona have instant checks in place that work very well and they have a low crime rate.

And just so you know, an American citizen with a clean criminal history is being deprived of their right to own a firearm in states like New York where they require permits and registration.  If you can speak your mind on a street corner, why can't a citizen with a clean criminal record buy a gun without needing a permit in the state of New York?

Contrary to what's reported, buying a gun is nothing like buying a gallon of milk.  Paperwork is almost always filled out.  Background checks are performed (either 10 day waits or instant checks).  It's even a felony for a felon to simply touch a firearm.  The problem is, no one ever goes after them and prosecutes them.  People have failed the background checks in states like California and not been prosecuted at all.  Maybe if we just started enforcing the laws on the books we'd have fewer criminals on the streets.

WE DID IT!!!!!!

Yeah, you did it alright. ;-)

Did you really have any doubt FF?

Yup. We elected a man based on his skin color, not on the content of his character. How sad. 

Hopefully someday, if we ever elect another bi-racial or black president, it will be based on his experience and qualifications. Someday.