Obama vs. McCain

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to institute civil unions at all?

What I would suggest is a Constitutionalist and thus someone who realizes that the free market can and should be responsible for solving problems rather than constant government intervention to mitigate utterly fabricated crises such as global warming and the laughable "recession."

the free market can and should be responsible for solving problems rather than constant government intervention to mitigate utterly fabricated crises such as global warming and the laughable "recession."

Well, let's sit and wait for the market to resolve these "fabricated" crises then, sounds reasonable enough.

What are you refering to as constitution shredding? Supporting gay marriages might be one?

He doesn't want you anymore.

Well, let's sit and wait for the market to resolve these "fabricated" crises then, sounds reasonable enough.

Why would the free market need to solve a fabricated crisis? Fabricated = they don't exist.

Fabricated = they don't exist.

I reached that conclusion, thanks.
I completely disagree however, they do exist and it's certainly not the market that will fix these issues by itself.

Well, let's sit and wait for the market to resolve these "fabricated" crises then, sounds reasonable enough.

Why would the free market need to solve a fabricated crisis? Fabricated = they don't exist.

How would explain the glacier meltings already taking place in antartica?

What are you refering to as constitution shredding? Supporting gay marriages might be one?

He doesn't want you anymore.

hahahhaahahaha lol goad 1!!!

they do exist and it's certainly not the market that will fix these issues by itself.

So you're telling me there is a recession right now despite the positive economic growth?

How would explain the glacier meltings already taking place in antartica?

There are warm (interglacial) periods and cold periods. Currently it is a warm period, very soon it will enter a cooling phase. The fearmongers seem to think that when temperatures go up, that means they can never go back down and are spiraling out of control, even though historical records show nothing to support this.

The silly part is that people think man's environmental "sins" have been a contributing factor to this in any way, as if we're somehow equal in power to the sun, moon, oceans, and established climate cycles.

Do you really want to derail your thread into global warming debate? I was just using it as an example, as I tend to forget that people view such statements as inflammatory and want me to rigorously explain them when the opposing views are so poorly constructed and propagandistic.

Reason I asked is because the premise of global warming has been an angle used by politicians of late; It is an issue addressed by both candidates. Nothing wrong with discussions on all the issues on the minds of voters.....this just happens to be one of them.

What are you refering to as constitution shredding? Supporting gay marriages might be one?

Obama supports gay marriage? News to me, I thought he was straddling that one.

I am going to make up a percentage and say that about 95% of what Obama has proposed is not a power of the federal government granted in the Constitution. Easy example, Obama's support of Social Security and desire to continue it. From his victory speech a few nights ago.

She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it.
...
That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future
...
he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American.

I don't remember the Constitution giving the federal government authority to control the health insurance industry and force citizens to participate in it; control auto companies, energy companies, and set "acceptable" levels of profit; associate itself in controlling education in anyway, or create a "right" to a college education.

The Constitution is not blank paper to be written on with whatever the state wishes. The entire point of the Constitution was to get away with that, as that was what the British Constitution was and is. Making it so is the equivalent of shredding it.

I agree with everyone that says both candidates are terrible; with that being said, I'll vote for McCain because Obama terrifies me because of his socialistic policies and that he's pushing this country towards a welfare state. If he's elected, it's because he's a novelty, just as Clinton would be had she not been thrown under the bus by her own party.

Like Benji said in the last post, all of the things Obama promises are not garunteed by the constitution, and it is not the government's place to control such things.

I've come across various message boards (ABC, NBC, CNN) were people are calling to have all Republicans removed from office so the Democrats can control the legislature and executive branch. If they control both of those, one would assume they would be able to inject extremely liberal judges into the vacancies in the supreme court. That to me is terrifying, as all of the anti-business/corporation/wealthy democrats will work to redistribute the wealth of anyone making $100k or more.

It seems to me that most Democrats are fools that don't understand who would be impacted by a higher capital gains tax (retirees/baby boomers on verge of retirement), what higer taxes in general (higher for $250k+, raising social security ceiling from $102k), or anything about economics in general. Granted, republicans aren't much better, but they at least understand that taxing and welfare programs don't help anything. Basically, people are fools to think that only the "wealthy" are the ones with money invested in the stock market and the ones receiving dividends from ExxonMobil.

Normally, I would vote independent (Paul), but because I do not want Obama in office, I will vote for McCain. Hopefully he picks a good VP, maybe Romney, or at least someone with half a brain for the economy. I hope to god he doesn't pick Giuliani...

It won't matter. One vote is irrelevant. Obama is going to win and become President the day after MLK Jr.'s Birthday.

Our slide towards authoritarianism will continue even if McCain defies all odds and somehow wins. The American Experiment is a failure. It seems as if not only are people destined to be ruled by others, but they actually desire to be ruled by others.

Towards a welfare state? We're already there, what is it, $75 trillion in future entitlements, and it will only grow. Because of our economic power we just haven't seen it, upfront in our faces, yet like in Sweden or elsewhere.

More illiberal justices won't change anything, they already murdered the Constitution in 1819. (The not-so-Civil War buried it, the Progressives took away the tombstone, FDR shit on the unmarked grave, and LBJ paved over it.)

I'm not aware of any politicans who regularly discuss their discomfort with how we let the state completely control education and what "truth" is. And this state controlled apparatus continues to ensure The Constitution has no meaning anymore. The Constitution is arguably the greatest political document, or at least the culmination of the rest of the greatest. To follow it now is to be declared a member of a "lunatic fringe" or "out of touch." (Or referring to it merely a leitmotiv.) Freedom has become the position of the fringe.

Cannibalization of its' citizens. That's all the American political system offers now.

But it's Shane Heftys vote! It Matters!!!

Every vote matters, unless it's 2000 and you're in Florida.

No, one single vote does not matter at the national or state level. Nobody could ever win by one vote.

Lulz, Florida and 2000. Got any more talking points unhinged from reality?

Lulz, Florida and 2000. Got any more talking points unhinged from reality?

Depends, your reality or the actual reality?

You would have to define both of those before I could answer.

I'm afraid I couldn't describe "your reality" for you, even though I'm starting to get a fairly good idea by now.

everytime either of these guys opens thier mouth it scares me, for obama's overall lack of experience and mccain for pretty much being the devil. i am starting to think its time to pack my shit and head for canada

You seem to know it is different from the "actual reality," the latter of which I assumed you could define, but you apparently refuse to define either.

i am starting to think its time to pack my shit and head for canada

Don't get me started on what is going on up there...

You seem to know it is different from the "actual reality," the latter of which I assumed you could define, but you apparently refuse to define either.

i am starting to think its time to pack my shit and head for canada

Don't get me started on them.

lol its there or mexico but i fear if i try to enter mexico i might get engulfed by the wave of mexicans coming north and i will just wash up in texas somewhere not knowing wtf is going on

You seem to know it is different from the "actual reality," the latter of which I assumed you could define, but you apparently refuse to define either.

Well, let me define yours then. Given your initial post, I assume that you would disagree with any report that shows the various irregularities surrounding the 2000 elections in Florida, whether it's the 4 different types of I.D. required in areas mostly populated by Latino and Black voters, or the Republican votes that were traced to deceased people. If this assumption is correct, then I have sufficient information to qualify "your reality" as deeply biased. Of course, I'm also basing this on many other instances where the same pattern could be observed.
To which you're going to reply "facts, where are the facts??", and since they're everywhere but you deliberately choose to deny them, there's not need to go further with this, as usual.

I have sufficient information to qualify "your reality" as deeply biased

Wow.

Are you attempting to claim someone, anyone, (perhaps yourself?) has an objective perspective of reality?

I assume that you would disagree with any report that shows the various irregularities surrounding the 2000 elections in Florida

Why would I disagree with any report showing "irregularities" in Florida in 2000? There were more than plenty and I'm rational enough to know "irregularities" are actually "regularities."

It is just a talking point, ignorant of the available body of history and data, to assume any of the following:
1. Florida in 2000, and thus the entire election was "stolen" due to a selective listing of only a few "irregularities."
2. Florida in 2000, prior to the initiation of legal action by the Gore camp, was some sort of unique event in the history of elections.
2a. All elections do not contain "irregularities."
3. "Exact number" vote counts actually mean something and are not manufactured/agreed upon/etc. merely for "proof" of a victors margin of victory.

To which you're going to reply "facts, where are the facts??"

To make you happy, I'd like to see the evidence of your first claim, I haven't ever heard of that one. (Requirement by Democratic election boards of four forms of I.D. in Democratic areas.) And I'd love to see the second claim along with the voting totals of all dead people. (I suspect there were as many, if not more dead who voted Democratic, is the reason.) Dead people are always voting, and they especially love to sign petitions.

Are you attempting to claim someone, anyone, (perhaps yourself?) has an objective perspective of reality?

It's more the other way around, I'm saying that denying facts that show what went wrong, or what should have been done better, appears to be particularly subjective and flawed, and you seem to be doing this with anything that goes against your convictions. I certainly don't have a perfectly objective grip on reality, but at least I don't live in denial, spending my time bashing any documented fact and calling it liberal conspiracy.

It's more the other way around, I'm saying that denying facts that show what went wrong, or what should have been done better, appears to be particularly subjective and flawed, and you seem to be doing this with anything that goes against your convictions.

Except, I have not done that. Despite what you wish me to be doing, I have not denied any facts whatsoever.

I don't live in denial, spending my time bashing any documented fact and calling it liberal conspiracy

I don't either.

But I guess you aren't interested in actually discussing a topic that isn't me. This is becoming a trend with people on here. I must be far more interesting than originally thought.

Except, I have not done that. Despite what you wish me to be doing, I have not denied any facts whatsoever.

That was my initial reaction reading this:

Lulz, Florida and 2000. Got any more talking points unhinged from reality?

But I guess you aren't interested in actually discussing a topic that isn't me. This is becoming a trend with people on here. I must be far more interesting than originally thought.

Uhh, okay...