General Music Chat

Um...after bragging about his agreement with Bush over 90% of the time, more than any Republican, McCain himself tells me that he is promoting four more years of Bush-like rule.

I haven't said that popular quote yet, but I do believe it, Craig, because the historical facts bear out the statement.

I must admit that I, too, am quite motivated by fear in this election, & I think I've made that very obvious. However, I also reiterate that my decision on a candidate will be based on a hope for the future wherein our rule is not based on fear-mongering.

I don't think that good ol' Billy Graham had met GWB as president when he wrote that autobiography. If he had, or if he had seen what this moron has done to our country, I doubt he'd be very impressed with our leader's desire for the best for all of us, based on his cronyism, his torture chambers worldwide, etc etc etc.

I never said that I have no concerns about Obama. I have very strong reservations about him, but they pale in significance when balanced against those that rise when I think of either McCain or Palin as our leader.

You may go ahead & continue to think how wonderful your grasp of logic & reality is, Craig, but I find your arguments weak & unconvincing, & I find your pet crusades both unfair & unsettling as they are taken to your extremes, when I logically follow through with how they affect us as a unified country.

"4 more years of george bush"

This one I think I will argue, because to the best of my ability, this is the case.

McCain has said on film that he voted with/for Bush (Bush's policies) 90% of the time.

But outside of that, here's why I see him as Bush III-

McCain voted against the GI bill. He threw veterans under the bus big time on that one.

McCain described the swiftboat attacks on Kerry as "dishonest and dishonorable" in 2004, yet they became his largest campaign contributor (collector as well) for this election, under a different name also, masking their involvement. Considering his 2004 statements, he has no honor or shame.

McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 has been understated dramatically, and a judge involved in the case has stated that McCain got off way too easy for his level of involvement.

McCain does NOT support collective bargaining.
McCain supports both wars, and also supports going to war with Iran, to the point that he's made jokes in public about it (bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...)
McCain is in the pockets of corporate america, they OWN him. I know you believe he will do what he thinks is best, but picture him like that, but imagine also his entire cabinet also being controlled by corporate interests... He will be 4 more years because Bush has the same problem. You think Cheyney and friends aint the ones really calling the shots?

I just don't see how McCain is going to change anything, at all. Is it true that he wants to tax healthcare benefits and my payroll deduction for healthcare? How will he make the world more peaceful? Can he resolve Darfur, and other brutal genocides and conflicts engulfing the world right now? Will he be able to renew relationships with Iran, Russia, Syria, Pakistan, etc... and convince them to reverse nuclear ambitions, or will he just threaten them like the Bush administration did ("we don't negotiate with turrists!"). Will McCain stop the senseless war on drugs and stop packing our prisions with non violent drug offenders? I just don't see ANY change with him, do you?

I never said that I have no concerns about Obama. I have very strong reservations about him, but they pale in significance when balanced against those that rise when I think of either McCain or Palin as our leader.

Now there's a well-said point that I totally agree with. I've said before, that the best election possible would have been Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich. Talk about a win/win. Forget policies, both of them have demonstrated that they have the common man's interests at heart, and they don't compromise their beliefs for personal gain.

I do believe Obama would compromise for the sake of negotiation/getting something accomplished, which I don't like or agree with, but can understand. I believe he will try to maintain his integrity as best he can in such trying times.

I also believe McCain would compromise for the sake of reimbursements for political favors, and enriching his associates agendas. I just don't see any integrity with him at all.

Wasn't there a Janis Joplin song called "Women Is Losers"?

OK I found it:

Women Is Losers

Women is losers
Women is losers, oh
Say honey women is losers.
Well, I know you must try, Lord,
And everywhere
Men almost seem to end up on top.

Oh, if they told you they want you
Say come around by your door.
Whoa I say now, if they don't desert you,
They'll leave you and never be here for more.
Oh yeah!

Women is losers
Women is losers
Women is losers, Lord, Lord, Lord!!!
So now I know you must-a know,
Lord, it's true,
Men always seem to end up on top.

They wear a nice shiny armor
Until there is a dragon for to slay.
Any day now,
Course with men beggin' to pay 'em
Then they'll turn and run away, oh!

Women is losers
Women is losers
Women is losers, Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord!!!
So I know you must-a know, Lord,
Anywhere
Men almost seem to end up on top, oh!

To JJ, in these times, I offer a huge raspberry.



I never liked her anyway!

Back on the topic - Craig, I would refer you to our Pledge of Allegiance. Note where it says "With Liberty & Justice for all." Nowhere does it provide for an "extra dollop of justice" if you're weaker than a man. Nor does our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, or even our Declaration of Independence.

Women deserve to be protected no more & no less than I, an average white guy. To claim that they deserve more protection than I do, or to claim that the perpetrators of offenses against them deserve a greater punishment than the ones who act against me, is insulting, sexist, & unfair at best.

If you can't see the logic of that argument, I feel very sorry for you.

Damn,was i hearing right? McCains campaign is calling Obama's economic and health policies "socialism"?,His views are similar too Canada's and Europe's policies....and I didn't know i lived in a socialist country,lol, ..that's it I'm destroying my health card.

The socialism charges are rooted primarily in statements Obama has made in support of "redistributing wealth", and "spreading wealth around" which I have heard him say on tape at least twice now. One recently, and one made years ago during an interview. It could be coincidence that he uses almost identical language in both statements, but it is more likely he has made this exact statement many times, and they just aren't all on tape. I say this because he has been pretty consistent in his philosophy over the length of his political career, so the consistency of his statements is less likely an accident, and more likely, a repetition of his beliefs. Other concerns about his socialist tendencies are derived from his associations. Some of his mentors and close associates are either socialists or possibly even communists.

Take this quote from Bill Ayers for example:

"I am a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist ... [Laughs] Maybe I'm the last communist who is willing to admit it. [Laughs] We have always been small 'c' communists in the sense that we were never in the Communist party and never Stalinists. The ethics of communism still appeal to me. I don't like Lenin as much as the early Marx."


Add to this, the fact that Obama has the most liberal voting record among ALL Senators. Not Top-20 or Top-10 - He has the MOST LIBERAL voting record among ALL Senators.

He's it. Number 1.

The most radical leftist Senator in congress. And leftists are generally sympathetic to socialism, if not socialists themselves.

I believe that EVERY ONE of those points are more central to this charge, than universal health care is.

Universal health care is a challenging issue.

It has had serious problems in many if not most countries where it is implemented. Sometimes seriously impacting the economy negatively for some countries. There are also concerns that, the quality of health care will diminish.

The two best arguments against declining health care concerns are:

1) America, at least according to WHO (World Health Organization) ranks 37th in the world in health care quality, with France being number one, along with quite a few other universal health care countries, all beating us out. Some group out there may have challenged whatever criteria is used by WHO, but I wouldn't know. I haven't researched it. But I know alot of people from other countries around the world, some are close enough that they may get on a plane just to visit me from time to time. So I spend a good amount of time with some of them discussing each other's country with respect to political and economic issues, standard of living, etc... We just had a friend visit from Denmark a few months ago, for example. And I know from these discussions alone, that health care is every bit as sound as ours, if not more so, for some. So I have no reason to doubt WHO'S assertions.


2) Even if it were true, that quality of care declined somewhat, it is also true that a "lesser quality" health care, beats the hell out of NO HEALTH CARE! And I would guess that at any given time, millions of Americans are without health care coverage, whether for long amounts of time, or merely gaps of weeks and months for whatever reason, laid off, change of jobs, etc... But even if it were only a few months here and there, it is like playing roulette with your health, hoping a catastrophe doesn't strike during the gap.


The cost of this is so large, that it could very well negatively affect the economy, but even accepting this possibility, speaking for myself, I lean toward universal health care.

In fact, I am close to considering it a "right".

Oddly, one of the main reasons for this, is looking at humanity throughout history. It occurred to me that until modern times, tribal communities in effect had universal health care throughout recorded history. Most cultures and tribes have a "medicine man" or "shaman" or whatever each group may call them, but they are the closest thing to a doctor there was. They were there for the welfare of the entire community. Because health and spirituality were interconnected for them, especially because some illnesses were considered spiritual in origin, i.e. "They may have to ward off evil spirits to heal some illnesses" - the healer was usually the spiritual leader of the group as well. In this role, I suppose it could be said that the tribal citizens "paid" for their health care, because perhaps some sort of tithe was required on occasion. But it may have been a goat or a chicken or something, and even then, at the very least, health care was available and AFFORDABLE for all.

Sure, these are primitive peoples, but the principle still holds true, that community members are interdependent to some degree on one another. Poor health in one member, affects the tribe, and as a member of the tribe that individual will be cared for. Not just out of concern for the individual, but also for the larger purpose of protecting the tribe as a whole.


Hopefully, this cleared up where the real concerns come from about Obama's socialist tendencies, as well as clearing up my personal views on the matter, especially concerning the role of health care in this.

Sadly, Phil likes to shoot himself in the foot all the time, cause he likes assuming sh*t without asking me first or waiting to see what my position is. And apparently "shooting yourself in the foot" is more enjoyable with company, cause he is bringing Kramer along now, to enjoy all the fun of self-inflicted gunshots.

huh?

Point out to me where I said anything at all about your views on Obama's socialism - go ahead. I defy you!

This thread rambles a bit. It ain't all about you, Craig. When Steve brought up a new point, I spoke with him about it. I don't see where your name came up. I think perhaps you're taking this a bit personal, but that isn't surprising, from the way you have spoken to & about me throughout this & other threads.

If you don't know how to argue well, don't take it out on me, my man.

Do try & stay on the issue, & whether or not you're winning an argument, there is no excuse for putting up blind-siding attempts like this one to derail your opponent. I have done no such thing, & you damned well know it. Who's shooting himself in the foot here?

I think you're a bit too emotional to handle these adult types of conversations. Doesn't look so "logical" or even "reasonable" to me. Do try to get ahold of yourself & rein in your emotions when you speak to or about me in the future.

I don't know if you noticed when you speak of Obama's so called socialism,your talking about my countries fundamentals and other country's also,and i can tell you it's not socialist or bad,it's called human compassion and respect for one another as a whole country(not a divided one).Did you even read the article i posted,It speaks of people that share your same view.
Also please explain what a quote from Bill Ayer's in the sixties has to do with anything of today or the future,i'd really like to understand the relevance.
Let's talk about Palin's connection to this quote ("My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand." )
from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that's the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year. ("Keep up the good work," Palin told AIP members. "And God bless you.").If only Obama was as dirty and sleazy as the McCain party to rub that in her face.

Add to this, the fact that Obama has the most liberal voting record among ALL Senators. Not Top-20 or Top-10 - He has the MOST LIBERAL voting record among ALL Senators.

I've seen this "point" made many times on political forums. I've never witnessed it actually being proven.

And that's what this election is reduced to- slandering the guy with no factual basis.

We get it - he's a socialist who willfully kneels to terrorists and commies. He's the puppet of a religious fruitcake. He wants to promote peace, which apparently appeases terrorists, instead of just bombing them and all the innocent people around them into oblivion. He will tax you so bad, that instead of a paycheck, you will get a weekly bill. He hates america. Your flag-pin is bigger than his, so that makes him a f**k traitor too. He believes all women should have their babies violently aborted at 8.5 months, and he believes in mandating sexual intercourse for kindergartners. We get it. Oh yeah, I almost forgot that also he's going to single-handedly cause Armageddon on day 1 in office.

Isn't Ron Paul still going to be on the ballot?

Heres how I see it all, and I warn you that this is not necessarily politically correct, correct, or even fair...

Obamas wife is an atrocity, and could easily cost him the election. She could quite possibly start the next big war just by running her big mouth.
Obama himself is too liberal, and in my opinion, he's an elitist.
I get the feeling that he thinks that you are to stupid to think for yourself or do for yourself.

McCain is too sanctimonious. And too John Wayne. (Or so he would have you believe)
I'm not sure that he is entirely mentally stable.
The man has been an accident waiting to happen. He nearly sank a carrier through his gilligans island-like antics -ErrrRRRRRR!.... through a mistake that he made.
People died. There was a huge fire. The carrier was a loss.
Then he got captured.

Now, it is obvious that the pieces of the puzzle that have made up the Bush administration do not fit.
Much damage has been done.


On the other hand... Bubba Clintons administration, while good for the economy, pretty much got New York attacked in the first place.
From rolling over and doing nothing with incidents such as the u.s.s cole, and downsizing the military.
Now it didnt make any terrorists attack us, but it was behaviour enticing to a bully, or predator.
And oh yes, I didnt notice the Clinton administration relieving any sanctions against Iraq. (If any one wants to holler that it was the republicans sanctioning iraq that led to being attacked)

The point of all this?
Were pretty much screwed either way I think.
Just research the candidates to the best of your ability and make a choice that you think will the least amount of damage.
Or vote for someone else that might be on the ballot.

I don't know if you noticed when you speak of Obama's so called socialism,your talking about my countries fundamentals

I don't think so.

Did you read my response about this?

True, Canada often elects liberal leaders. But they are not socialists, who believe in "redistributing" wealth. Canada is one of the world's wealthiest nations, and it didn't get there by redistributing wealth. Canada closely resembles our market based economy in America, and shares a high standard of living. This is not a product of socialism. Your country has strong democratic roots, it is NOT socialist. You have universal health care, welfare and several other social programs, but I don't see that as contradictory to democratic ideals, and it is hard to argue with low unemployment and record surpluses. Canada could be a role model in some ways for us. You guys are doing very well economically and seem to have a good balance between social programs that are beneficial while maintaining economic freedom through a market based economy. Kudos to Canada!

and other country's also,and i can tell you it's not socialist or bad,it's called human compassion

Universal health care is compassionate? Agreed.

But we are talking about REDISTRIBUTING the wealth. To break that down, when you RE-distribute something, you COLLECT IT from those who are doing well, and then pass it back out to those who aren't. The problem with this, besides being immoral and anti-democratic, is that people are more often than not, in wealthy countries, victims of THEMSELVES and their own lifestyles, not any unfair system.

The famous saying is something along the lines of "If you took all the nation's wealth and distributed it equally, within 5 years or so, it would all be back in the hands where it started." because people who don't understand money (and don't care to learn) DO NOT know how to manage money. In general THAT IS WHY they are in the situations they are in.

Look at lottery winners, that's evidence enough. An amazingly high percentage of lottery winners end up poor again, and often claim they were happier BEFORE they got the windfall. There are stories all over cable about such situations. People's families breaking up, suing each other, going into debt, and ending up where they were in the first place, only with a broken family now.

This is reality.

Why does it happen? They don't know how to handle their money, well, better yet "THEY CHOOSE" not to handle their money correctly, cause the lottery provides counselors free of charge to brief these people and WARN them what can happen if they are not responsible. They are given advice on how best to protect themselves. Do they listen? Many don't...if not most. I have seen some figures as high as 70%, but I have no way of verifying what the actual percentage is. It all gets spent in a few years of spending sprees. Easy come, easy go. That alone will show you why redistributing wealth DOES NOT and WILL NOT ever work.

Of course wealth is unequal, because people willing to WORK and DISCIPLINE themselves, will PRODUCE wealth, while others who do not drive themselves WILL NOT. Not only is it lunacy, to take from those who are most disciplined and give to those who are not very disciplined, but it is IMMORAL as well.

Also please explain what a quote from Bill Ayer's in the sixties has to do with anything of today or the future,i'd really like to understand the relevance.

Sixties? That quote was from 1995 bro.

But it's good that you are following the party line, since Obama's mindless excuse about his relationship with Ayers, is sucked up and spit back out by his admirers without thought. Hell, even his media admirers repeat his lines for him.

This is a quote from Obama in response to a question by George Stephanopoulos...


"And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."


What does being 8 years old have to do with anything? Straw man. Nobody claimed he assisted Bill Ayers in this terrorist campaign. What does age difference have to do with someone's history, whether positive or negative? The trouble is that Bill Ayers is a CRIMINAL who was not prosecuted because of a legal technicality, and worst of all, he is UNREPENTANT of his acts of violence.

So Barack was 8 years old when Bill Ayers was on his terrorism campaign against America?

John McCain was 8 years old when Hitler was very far into his own terrorist campaign, more popularly known as the Holocaust!

Does it make Hitler somehow less worthy of contempt because John McCain was 8 years old when Hitler was murdering 6 million Jews?

Serious Question:

If Hitler were alive today, and he was unrepentant - once again - UNREPENTANT, and John McCain held his first fundraiser in Hitler's living room, and consulted with Hitler on occasion over policy issues, and wrote a blurb for Hitler's best-selling book Mein Kampf and as a politician, later diverted funds to Hitler's causes, and served on various boards along side Adolph Hitler, and so forth. Oh yeah, and when queried about all this, McCain's response was that Ayers is "a guy I know in my neighborhood" suggesting that the relationship was casual and further excusable because he is a neighbor, yet you knew the real facts, as mentioned above, of all the various partnerships they have shared through the years... and then another lie, when McCain claims that he didn't really know Ayers had engaged in such acts, and then this is revised to "Well, I was only 8 years old at the time, and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated since then" and you think... Hmm... "Could there really be ANYONE in Chicago, who doesn't know that Ayers is unrepentant? When both he and his terrorist wife are regularly interviewed on Chicago News, and are OFTEN asked whether he regrets any of his terrorist acts, and he consistently says "No!". How could Barack be a Chicago politician and not know this?

Would you accept such bullsh*t from John McCain?

Lame excuses such as "he did those things when I was 8 years old" and changing stories about what Obama knew and when he knew it?.

Would that fly if it were John McCain?

You may need to answer "yes" to appear equitable, but we really know, that the answer would be "No!" You would have some of the best ammunition yet, against McCain and would pounce mercilessly on it, again and again. Hell, I would have helped you.

Yes, the leftist academia and liberal mayor of Chicago have given Ayers leadership roles in education in that city as well as awards, and this is Obama's justification for consorting and consulting with Ayers, but didn't we all, as kids, learn from our parents, the maxim "If your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too?"

Ayers didn't stop being a threat to America, simply because it has been 40 years since his last bombing. On the contrary, in some ways, he is far more dangerous now, in the role he has been given by the liberal academia in Chicago, then he was 40 years ago. Because he now has major influence on educational curriculum for children in Chicago schools. What does he want to teach them?

Well, he stated that he has never relinquished his goal of destroying American Capitalism, and that even today, he is working toward it's destruction. Only now, clearly, as he has aged, he uses his substantial role in Chicago academia as opposed to bombs, to bring about our decline.

In 2006, he told Venezuelan dictator Hug Chavez:

“We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution.”


Are you getting the picture yet?


Speaking of "pictures" - you know, they are worth 1000 words right? This particular picture was taken in 2001. That year seems significant somehow! Hmm...

Obama's friend and political comrade, Bill Ayers - Proudly stepping on, and desecrating Your Country's Flag:

I don't place any more emphasis on Obama's "association" with Ayers or take it any more seriously than Palin's "association" with Vogler, although, if I were to, I think I's be a bit more concerned about Palin's, simply due to her more recent remarks to Vogler's organization.

You need to find out about Obama's supposed drive for the "redistribution of wealth," Craig. That has been explained well enough to us all that I needn't repeat it other than to say that it was a sentence taken out of context. Yeah, perhaps you should do a bit more of that great research you're so fond of doing, & actually find out what it was in reference to.

Obama is no more a communist than McCain. Your comparison between Ayers & Hitler is laughable, & designed to outrage us all, but it just doesn't hold water, & I fail to see how Ayers' views are any more dangerous than Vogle's. Did Obama give Ayers a "shout out" to his cause, or tell him to "keep up the good work," like Ms Palin did?

Yeah, I think we DO get the picture, Craig. But I think you need glasses to see it.

"The socialism charges are rooted primarily in statements Obama has made in support of "redistributing wealth", and "spreading wealth around" which I have heard him say on tape at least twice now"- Craig Maxim

The "redistributing of wealth",is taken highy out of context,here the more money you get the bigger the taxes,no body's suffering,people still get there fancy cars,theirs no suit's with rolex's sitting on the street corner.with all of that we still fight to end poverty for people.

"you COLLECT IT from those who are doing well, and then pass it back out to those who aren't" Something is seriously messed up with people who think that's an intelligent statement,seriously.Your the same people!!,you live in the same country!,stop being selfish and greedy.
He's not talking about "redistributing wealth",he's speaking about having common descentcy and respect for each other,and all you can do is mock him?that simpley is a sad display foolishness.

Then there's the fact that Bush was elected on two terms,by people that were dumb enough to vote for this guy(over a nobel prize winner),should seriously shut their mouths,you support that douche bag,and think you could have an intelligent argument and know what's better..you don't,period.

"Sixties? That quote was from 1995 bro. ",don't sound too happy that i'm not tossing McCains salad and rolling around in his verbal septic tank.
I noticed you went really rebublican and didn't pay attention too Mrs Palin's(as an American adult,and actually knowing 911 happend) Anti American family friend,why is that?

And to your McCain/Hitler question....wow....just wow.I didn't know Ayer's was the only Anti Governmet Hippie in the sixties.amazing!Excellent job of pulling a Bush/McCain/Palin, and insulting an entire culture and generation,and doing so happily,lol,then technically comparing the Anti Government hippie type to Nazi's.

And oh well about your dumb picture,you telling me that he was the only one thinking America was in the sh*t's,there were plenty of people doing somthing "artististic" with the flag,Why don't you go ask Palin why her hubby's AIP party leader wanted too rip one of the stars off the American flag?...oh you won't..because your too blind and proud.

And i just want say i don't like governments or religons...and that doesn't make me a terrorist or affiliated with any.