Who will be our next president?

Your "real evidence" is that it's common sense? That is very sad. Basically you just said that you don't need a reason to dislike him because he's different.

This is the only "reason" you have been able to give:

aquagurl119 wrote:I'm saying because of the evidence. Plus keep in mind I said potential...but in reality, every candidate has a dangerous potential. I didn't like Kerry and I never said that about him. I couldn't stand Hillary and I never said that stuff about her! It's the fact that it seems fishy with Obama...not because I just plain don't like him and I'm trying to blow things out of proportion!

You're the one that said it was "the fact that it seems fishy with Obama" What the hell does that even mean?

What exactly seems fishy with Obama?

I've given many examples of why I feel McCain shouldn't be President, his anger, his following of the failed Bush Policies, his taxing of Insurance Benefits which will likely result in tens of millions being dropped from employer based health coverage, his poor judgment picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, the fact that he has done absolutely no real talking about the current financial crisis and how he'd handle it, and the fact that he has resorted to the very same negative strategies which he decried in 2000.

All you can give me is "the fact that it seems fishy with Obama" without even saying what the "it" is that seems fishy?

How exactly is this a debate, seems like you're using the "I'm taking my ball and going home" tactic here. You're basically saying you are right because you believe you are right. Debates are usually about arguing your case, which I feel I have fairly well, without attacking you personally - now I have marked you in with the standard Repubs when I have attacked them. If you felt any of this was a personal attack, then I apologize as it wasn't meant as such.

I'm simply trying to understand how someone - ANYONE - can vote for someone who wishes to continue failed economic policies while spending 10 Billion Dollars a month for the next 100 years - which is how long McCain said he'd stay in Iraq.

He has nothing left except name calling and fear mongering... good thing the Repubs are so good at that.

And how about that $150 Million spent on clothes for Sarah and her family over the last two months?

Bet that looks good to middle America![/quote]

Sean,

I know how passionate is your support for Obama and I respect you for that. While I don't share your endorsement for him, I am not enamored with McCain either. Fortunately, I live in a state where my vote will not make a difference for either one of them, so I don't feel absolutely compelled to hold my nose and vote for what I perceive as the lesser of two incompetents.

However, the 100 years in Iraq statement was taken out of context and even Obama doesn't use it anymore. You are a better debater and more knowledgeable of the issues than to have to rely on that argument.

On November 4th I am going to go to bed early and try to sleep for the next four years. After that, maybe there will be a candidate who can heal the rancor that has developed within this country. I don't see either McCain or Obama being able to do that, unfortunately. This country cannot continue with the divisiveness that has developed over the last 16 years, and the continual game of "gotcha" is not solving any of our social, economic, or security issues.

Best,

B

Do American news channels show protests against George Bush Jnr. anymore; or do they still regard the daily bombings in Iraq as news? I am increasingly finding that I have to watch Al Jazeera or Russia Today to hear about such things. Then again, these two particular news channels are based in nations that are anti-American.

Chucky,

With the dramatic decrease in American casualties, the MSM coverage of Iraq has diminished to almost nil. The presidential election and the economy has overshadowed most other external news. The old adage of "if it bleeds, it leads" only works when the people being killed are from the market being addressed.

My source of news varies from where I am. I listen to NPR when I drive to work and MSNBC is the only thing I can get at work if I have time to watch it. When I get home, I surf the net and usually look at conservative sites as well as Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Democratic Underground. I don't depend on any one (or even two) sources to form my opinions. Both Al Jazeera and the Russian news media have their agendas when it comes to reporting of America and its global involvement. Of course, the same can be said for American news outlets.

bereft wrote:When I get home, I surf the net and usually look at conservative sites as well as Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Democratic Underground.

You see, this line by you gives an indication of one problem that you have over there: That politics permeates just about everything. I mean, by definition, news sources should be independant. However, that certainly isn't the case over there. If you watch Fox News and then CNN, it's like watching two news channels from completely different countries (because they report different things according to their political backing).

Here, our national TV network (RTÉ) is independent and it is renowned for this fact.

Kevin

Chucky,

Yes, there is no independent press any more, just opinions that pass for news and personal agendas.

Whether you like Fox News or not, if there was a truly unbiased news outlet, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't be raking in the dough.

Too much freedom is a bad thing as there are too many stupid and greedy people in the world.

Freedom does not translate into instant wealth but it should represent personal responsibility. In fact there are plenty of dictatorships where the wealthy continue to prosper and the poor continue to be oppressed.

Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

To me, that is the essence of the fundamentals our country was built upon.

I totally agree with you, Asuka. You're actually the first person ever that I've encountered who also believes that too much freedom is bad. We need rules, dammit, because we are - by our very nature - irresponsible and greedy. Democracy - on face-value - is a good way to govern a nation, but not long term. Can't you all see that society is ever so slowly degrading?

Chucky and Asuka,

Just remeber that the person (or people) who make the decision as to what liberties of yours will be curbed will not be you and even may not be someone you supported or voted for.

They will have never lived in your station of life or faced the ordinary myriad of life's problems that you have. And, of course, your liberties may be curtailed while theirs are not.

If you want to consider a time when liberties were limited for the sake of humanity, think of Europe before the Protest Revolution. The Church said that the dictates were for the good of mankind, and charitable works were done, but the many were oppressed for the benefit of the few.

Hi,

What do you mean by the 'Protest Revolution'? - Are you referring to The Crusades? Asuka is the man for history here, so, just wait until he starts (he won't stop!).

Kevin