Vote

[Shadow]

Sorry, if you youtube Palin you will see some speeches that are so foolish they actually embarrass you while you watch them. Citing the fact that she lived close to Russia and Canada is being beneficial to her foreign policy because she lived so close to 2 foreign countries. Fr just one random example. I leave it to you to find more, there are hundreds.

[Ereptor]

Lol.  I am sure if I lived next to you I would know a little bit more about your habits that others don't know about.  Bah whatever its over....im not going to argue it.

[windhound]

The problem is that Biden wasnt any better Shadow
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1854640,00.html

While his windy, off-point pontification was the stuff of legend among his Senate colleagues, Biden is now leashed to a teleprompter even when he is talking in a high school gym that is three-quarters empty. The exposure hound who in recent years appeared more often than any other guest on the Sunday talk shows is a virtual stranger to the small band of reporters on his plane — less accessible than even Sarah Palin is to her traveling pack of bloodhounds. And Biden keeps to a schedule that provides a minimum of off-the-cuff encounters with voters, except across a rope line.

The difference is that the Obama campaign moved in and stopped Biden from doing much damage
Palin had basically free range.
She said some odd things, sure.  But Obama's said much worse
His now infamous "clinging to guns and religion" quote, for one.
I leave it to you to find more, there are hundreds.

[Shadow]

Agree to disagree then. Biden was basically a background to Obama's campaign, while Palin was almost more of a focus for a while then McCain himself. That was a huge mistake for McCain.

Don't get me wrong, I think McCain could have been a good president, but I think that it's high time someone from the other party got in to balance out the mess Bush made. It's not like he could possibly do worse. I don't like Obama any more than I do McCain, I just disagree with McCain's approach to just about everything more than I do for Obama, so Obama is the preferable choice for me.

I am not familiar with Obama's clinging to gun and religion quote, I'll look it up.

[Gen. Volkov]

Isn't Bob Barr the indy candidate?

No, he was libertarian, the other guy on many ballots was Nader. Perot didn't run.

Don't get me wrong, I think McCain could have been a good president,

See, that's the BS I've been hearing from every Obama supporter. Before the election, it was all "McCain is just like Bush, and he would be a terrible president". Now that Obama has won, everyone is like "McCain probably would have been just fine as president." I've always voiced the exact opinions I have of the two men in question, and I'm not about to change my tune now that Obama has been elected. That's one of the other things that has been pissing me off recently.

[Shadow]

You are taking that line out of context volk. McCain the man would have been a strong leader, McCain the Republican is, well, a Republican, which in my eyes make you unfit to lead a country ^_^.

Plus the concept of Palin being one 70 year old heartbeat away from presidency is something that I doubt even most Republicans would be happy about.

[Gen. Volkov]

Plus the concept of Palin being one 70 year old heartbeat away from presidency is something that I doubt even most Republicans would be happy about.

If that had been true, yeah, I guess. But McCain is in good shape, he runs every day. His dad lived to like 92.

You are taking that line out of context volk. McCain the man would have been a strong leader, McCain the Republican is, well, a Republican, which in my eyes make you unfit to lead a country

Doesn't sound much different to me, in context:

"Don't get me wrong, I think McCain could have been a good president, but I think that it's high time someone from the other party got in to balance out the mess Bush made."

In or out of context though, it wasn't really about you, it was more just representative of what I'm hearing a lot of Democrats say, after talking down McCain for the last 8 months. It's just really getting on my nerves.

And by the way, Republican makes you unfit to lead a country? Respectfully, screw you. I can think of 3 Republican presidents right here and now who EVERYONE will agree were great leaders. Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Abraham freaking Lincoln. Shoot, Bush Sr. didn't even do that bad of a job, and Reagan helped win the Cold War. It's not the party that makes you unfit to lead, it's the person. I will fully agree that Bush Jr. was not fit to run the country.

[Briar]

hear, hear.

I totally agree with the General.  The Republican platform calls for lower taxes  It calls for small government and it believes that certain industries should be privitized.  It allows American to make there own finacial decisions.

The Democratic platform wants to raise taxes and makes financial decision for us because it believes we can't make them for ourselves.  It means nationalizing certain industries which would lead to lower quality.

Bush fell of the platform with his poor fiscal policies.  But one man's actions do not necessarily reflect a groups beliefs.

[Shadow]

If you look at hte financial records of the last few presidents, you will notice that the fiscal conservatives tend to leave a massive deficit behind them (I think Bush set the record?) whereas the liberals with their taxes and spending actually climbed out of the hole a few times.

Alright volk, that perhaps was a bit far.

[Sharptooh]

Plus if you get McCain you get Palin, and there are things living in the sole of my shoe who could do a better job then Sarah Palin.

  Actually Sarah Palin is actually rather popular more popular than biden, so if anything she helped Mccain.

can somebody explain to me how the US voting system is fair? three million votes in the difference yet its 333 vs 156? Why should a mans vote in Pennsylvania be worth more then a vote in Nebraska? It strikes me as baffling

  I agree with Kell, how on earth does this make sense???

[Briar]

Mind you, I don't agree with the electoral college because it can negate the popular vote, but

supporters of it claim that it Prevents an urban-centric victory, Enhances status of minority groups, Neutralizes turnout disparities between states, and can Maintain separation of powers.

[Gen. Volkov]

If you look at hte financial records of the last few presidents, you will notice that the fiscal conservatives tend to leave a massive deficit behind them (I think Bush set the record?) whereas the liberals with their taxes and spending actually climbed out of the hole a few times.

Actually if you look at the financial records closely, all the presidents since 1980 have been crap in the fiscal responsibility department. Clinton increased spending 30%, and the prime reason he had the sort of surpluses he did was because the economy boomed all through his terms. Tax revenues went up 83%, without any changes to the tax code. The economy boomed primarily because of the tech sector and then later on internet companies. The National Debt never decreased under Clinton, it's growth simply leveled off.

Alright volk, that perhaps was a bit far.

A bit? Yeah, I'll say. Yeesh.

[Shadow]

If you look at hte financial records of the last few presidents, you will notice that the fiscal conservatives tend to leave a massive deficit behind them (I think Bush set the record?) whereas the liberals with their taxes and spending actually climbed out of the hole a few times.

Actually if you look at the financial records closely, all the presidents since 1980 have been crap in the fiscal responsibility department. Clinton increased spending 30%, and the prime reason he had the sort of surpluses he did was because the economy boomed all through his terms. Tax revenues went up 83%, without any changes to the tax code. The economy boomed primarily because of the tech sector and then later on internet companies. The National Debt never decreased under Clinton, it's growth simply leveled off.

Most of the presidents who had crap financial records were republicans who consistently dug a deeper hold. Clinton did well to even level that off. You basically supported my point in a very dessenting way there. The booming economy in his term was partly due to leadership - in the same way that the massve, record setting debt of today is a result of stupidity and a trillion dollars wasted in Iraq.

I am willing to bet that for the cost of the war, the US could have peacefully bought most of the oil production in Iraq. And they probably would have laughed at such a massive sum being the cost, as well. Not really the point, but meh.

[Briar]

The economic boom of the 90s was due to the Technology Revolution not something that Clinton did...he was just there.  New job were created because a new industry was created.  That Revolution is now over and is stagnating hence the lack of new jobs.

BTW... If you really want to compare presidents vs. spending you normally have to look at the previous president.  Most policies take 2-5 years to take hold.  That means that if a president makes a financial decision, people may not see the true effects until that president is gone.  that means the credit goes to the next president.

The economy is having issues because people buy on credit and then don't make enough to pay off the bills.  If people stopped "keeping up with Jones' " and lived within their means then the economy would begin the healing process.  Yes some people earn more money and can buy toys that others can't but think to yourself...do you really need that new car or does your old one still have life in it?

[Gen. Volkov]

Most of the presidents who had crap financial records were republicans who consistently dug a deeper hold. Clinton did well to even level that off. You basically supported my point in a very dessenting way there. The booming economy in his term was partly due to leadership - in the same way that the massve, record setting debt of today is a result of stupidity and a trillion dollars wasted in Iraq.

Most of the presidents? No, most of them in the past 30 years. Before that, both republicans and Dems were pretty good financially, in national debt and deficit terms, though Carter handed Reagan the worst economy in the last 50 years in 1980. Clinton didn't do much really. For the first 5 years of office, he ran massive deficits too, and it took until 1998 before the tax revenues finally caught up with his spending habits. Like I said, Clinton increased spending 30% while in office. The National Debt increased at the same rate as it had under Bush and Reagan for the first 5 years or so of Clinton's 2 terms. The massive record setting debt of today is at least partly a legacy of Clinton. He handed the country off to Bush with 5 trillion dollars worth of debt already. 2 trillion of that was from Clinton himself. The booming economy, well, that was the tech sector and the internet. Clinton had nothing to do with either of those, in fact he let a bunch of problems pile up. Such as the credit crisis, and the sub-prime mortgage disaster. Warren Buffet was warning us about those in 1996. Which is 4 YEARS before Clinton left office. I did not support your point, I told you they were all crap in spending terms, Clinton basically just got lucky.

I am willing to bet that for the cost of the war, the US could have peacefully bought most of the oil production in Iraq. And they probably would have laughed at such a massive sum being the cost, as well. Not really the point, but meh.

Not if Saddam wasn't willing to sell it too us, and he wasn't. He had kicked out American companies back in 1972. There have been no American oil companies in Iraq for 36 years.

BTW... If you really want to compare presidents vs. spending you normally have to look at the previous president.  Most policies take 2-5 years to take hold.  That means that if a president makes a financial decision, people may not see the true effects until that president is gone.  that means the credit goes to the next president.

In terms of effect on the economy, that is generally true. In terms of budgetary spending habits, that's not true at all. A prime example is Truman after WW2. He turned the budget around in a matter of months, and began paying off the debt almost immediately. Granted, not everyone has the chance to cut programs like Truman had, but the budget is made up every year, and spending can be changed from year to year. In the main spending items on the federal budget, Clinton kept nearly the same policies as Bush and Reagan. He could have changed those policies and achieved a drastic and immediate reduction in the deficit.