im sure the older people in here can back me up like papasteeze but the problem with obama is that he is pulling so much off of the youth vote getting the youth out there the 18-25 year olds that this will actually cause a problem. i can tell because i listen to 90% of you who are liberal from 16-20 maybe on this site and you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. some of you do yes and really know why you life obama but majority does not. getting people to vote is fine if he wants to do that but the problem is the younger crowed of voters has never had to deal with real life problem they dont pay taxes that they know about their parents do it. they dont own houses or business they have really done nothing but live off of there parents or live at home and go to high school or college for a few years. yes some people in this age group dont fall into this category there are kids who do have to deal with this "real life" stuff. i dont know if that makes sense but i think some of you will understand.
btw palin speech was good she really had some good hard hitting lines i liked it!
^^^^ heres the thing though. This is America and nothing is going to dramatically change unless you have some type of trauma directly attributable to something an administration does. Like if there is a war, you are drafted and then you die fighting.
I have been through a bunch of administrations and the one that I think was the worst was the Carter Era. Obama if elected wont do much IMO opinion, however he will stifle growth IMO and that is not good.
I disagree with you completely. First of all saying that just young people wanting to vote for Obama have no idea on his policies is grossly inaccurate. It is exactly the same with young republicans. While many of us between the ages of 18-25 may not pay the full taxes that our parents do, or own houses or anything, we still have many 'real life' problems to face on a day to day basis. We get hit just as hard by our falling economy as many other people do. Not only do a large majority of us have to cope with school on a daily basis, we also have to balance that time working to make ends meet. Now I'm not going to lie, I'm pretty well off, but I still am doing 25+ hours a week of class as well as 20+ hours at work and I still feel the crunch of our weak economy. Many others have to deal with student loans and paying off multiple other bills. Young voters are getting hit just as hard as older "more intelligent" voters but for perhaps slightly different reasons.
Also you make it sound like only young voters don't know what the candidates stand for, which is very far from the fact. There are millions upon millions of uninformed voters out there from every age group. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if young voters were more informed, because from what I've seen at school (and I go to a huge school) many many young people today are getting very involved with politics.
I think alot of people are voting for Obama because they just want something different. The last 8 years have sucked for everyone and its time for a fresh breath of air, so to speak. I do agree that alot of young voters may vote for Obama because he is "hip" and "popular" but I still think (or hope at least) that a large majority of people will actually be voting for his policies.
The only dealing with iran we should do right now is some diplomacy FOR ONCE..
Unfortunately, the current administration completely, and utterly failed to have any diplomatic talks with that country, so what do you expect.
However, if they do aquire nuclear tech, and subsequently give weapons to hezbollah, who will likely use them on Israel, or other nations they have a bone to pick with, THEN I believe they should be "dealt with", and I'm pretty sure the UN security council will agree...
Just ignore him... if we'd all posted pages and pages of comments on things we didn't like about the McCain speech, he would have said that must mean it was a good speech because it got everyone talking about it, or something else. For some people, the party can do no wrong... it's called being a hack.
I thought the speech itself was the most boring, unimpressive one delivered at either convention, but that's what everyone expected; it's not JM's strong suit. But really, the whole evening was pretty devoid of energy or enthusiasm. Like, worse than the first two days of the democratic convention, even. It would've been more interesting to watch what was going on outside, from what Drew's saying.
I don't understand how it's remotely constitutional to say, no one can legislate on the CONTENT of speech (the KKK can have public rallies and harass black people who pass by), but they can literally marginalize you by pushing you into an area where no one will see you. The POINT of public protest is that people see you! As far as I'm concerned, if the message is purely political and not designed to incite hatred or violence, or simply to drown out other speech (see the guys with the megaphones at BOTH conventions trying to fuck up the media by making as much noise as possible near their sets) you ought to be able to say whatever you want, wherever you want. Yknow, without being beaten, gassed and cuffed. Is there any reason whatsoever to justify the alternative policy? Could someone please explain this?
The "present" thing is a pointless bit of political hackery to play on the ignorance of the 99.5% of Americans who don't have the slightest idea what goes on in a state senate. And why would you? But the reality is that voting present is not scandalous whatsoever, it's mundane daily business that everyone engages in. Much the same way the "voted for it before he voted against it" thing was exploited, and much the same way all senators from either party are subject to exploitation of their records. Things SOUND bad when you take them out of the context of how the legislative branch actually works, and since it's boring to explain how it works, how daily operations go and what everyone has to do to actually get things done, it's easier for the media and candidates just to keep replaying a sound bite, and it's easier for the people listening to them to just take it at face value and do absolutely nothing further.
See, this is what I loathe so much about US politics: it's the tactics that count on the laziness, ignorance or plain stupidity of the American people to work. And both parties do it, I'm not being partisan here. Somoene looks at a tactic or a talking point and says "Well, this is disingenuous, but only 10% of the population will be able to recognize that and fewer still will be able to explain why. It will work on the other 90%, and if we keep repeating it, we can drown out the people trying to explain to them why we're wrong, since it's easier just to listen to us than try to understand what the other guys are saying. Okay, go." And people wonder why the public is so cynical about politicians.
Living here, I love comparative constitutional law, because s.1 of the Canadian Charter makes those rights so very different from the American "absolute" rights... really, it just means legislators have to find sneaky new ingenious ways to get around the constitution. In order to keep the KKK and Fred Phelps from rampaging across the city, since you can't say "You have no right to wilfully promote violence against minorities", you get things like free speech zones, which end up harming the interests of people with legitimate points to make (stupid or not). Canada takes a lot of flak down south for having a "constitutional exception" to Charter rights, but in reality it seems to work, just so long as the Supreme Court remains fairly reliable.
okay so explain, im willing to hear you through. you just told me what a bunch of hackery it was, and then didnt say what it means. voting present is fine, but the extent to which he voted present is pretty severe
129 times out of over 4000 votes? That is 3% of the time. Most of the
present votes were on issues like abortion, which provides a good
example as to one of the ways a present vote works in the ISS. Obama
drew a lot of criticism for voting present on pro-choice oriented
abortion bills, as opponents alleged that this implied that he wasn't
dedicated to being pro-choice. In voting present, the 20 or so state
senators who voted that way on the bill that came through (more than
once) were essentially voting "no", because the intricacies of the bill
required that it be passed at that point or become moot, and without
the support of this bloc the bill would fail. However, the Senators who
voted present did so to express support for the measure in principle
despite being unable to support it as a law due to various details
That's just one reason for voting present, there are numerous others,
but usually what it expresses is, "I cannot in good conscience support
this as a law, despite my sympathy for your cause". That might seem
weird ("why don't you just vote no?") to people in other parts of the
country where the norms differ, but in the ISS and in a fair number of
other legislative bodies, it's just the way things are done, and has
been for a lot longer than Obama has been there.
And there are a lot of other little process-oriented idiosyncracies in
legislative bodies from the local level to the national level that the
average person walking down the street won't be able to grasp, too (any
more than I could grasp how electrical engineering works), which is why
so much of this kind of campaigning goes on. It's just easier to say
"hey that sounds bad, and they're telling me it's bad, so it must BE
bad" than to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Both parties do it.
That's why it's not an issue-based attack, and is really just a cheap
political stunt. It's also why common political wisdom is that it's
very hard for legislators to run for president, and it's easier to run
1. In most legislatures, lawmakers vote either
“yes” or “no” on bills, but in Illinois, senators and representatives
can hit a third button for a “present” vote. Now that quirk — not
unique to Illinois — has sparked heated exchanges among Democrats vying
2. Seriously, I think Obama had an epiphany at some point while at Harvard and decided to run for President then.
3. Seriously - the guy even talks about his own eloquence coupled with gangliness and draws correlations to Lincoln. I hope that his aides don't let him go to the theater.
Tabloid style garbage and a non-issue. Who cares what he looks like, and if he "draws correlations to Lincoln", which you've conveniently asserted without support. Implication of the possibility of assassination already bit Hillary in the ass earlier in this campaign, if Republicans want to resort to that now, it's both disgusting and politically foolish.
If you can't refrain from this kind of crap there's no point in having a conversation with you.
Wait a fuckin minute JD. Obama talks about Lincoln I got the correlation from him.... and now looking at the facts, that is some creepy stuff IMO of course!. take the correlations and project them forward with a bit of irony and antagonism thrown in and you call it crap?
Tell me the specific things that you think will have improved in 4 years with in the US with Obama in charge. I contend that unemployment will be higher, our deficit will be higher, fuel prices will be higher, unemployment will be higher, mortgage rates will be higher.
You make inferences which are meaningless even if they are true (and don't provide any support for them), and call it creepy, then make "future predictions" about assassination. Yes, that's crap. It has nothing to do with whether or not he would be a good president, and trying to find a way to make it seem like it does is more of you being a hack, which you've become adept at recently.
I think in four years more people in the USA will have affordable health coverage, the quality of education will improve, income tax will be lower for 95% of Americans, America will have re-established some of the international relationships decimated in the last 8 years, monthly US troop death toll will diminish substantially, and while the president has little to no real control over gas prices or the stock market, I have more faith in Obama's white house's handling thereof than that of a man who has in his own words limited understanding of economic issues. As for the deficit, well, after the Clinton administration, there was a record surplus. After the Bush administration, there is now a massive defecit. Who do I trust, the guy who supports policies similar to Bush's, or similar to Clinton's? Not a tough call. The modern Republican way appears to be to follow through on promises to cut taxes, but never getting around to the promises about cutting spending, resulting in massive defecits.
I'm going to stop now because I've actually started to give support for my points, and since you've routinely failed to do that, I assume it wasn't required when you posed the question.
You're right in saying that i described it to sound like it was a no vote, and depending on how any people vote present it can be like letting it run its course, but it is not. You're wrong to jump to the conclusion that i'm in idiot. It's a difficult thing to explain. The closest analogy i can think of is a "maybe" vote. Voting yes would let it run its course. voting present is keeping the bill from reaching a majority vote while still not voting no. Obama voted present a lot because he didn't want to offend people. I think that is ridiculous personally. Usually, people vote present if they like the bill but think part of it is unconstitutional or something along those lines.
Here again. I don't really care about the details. I look at big pictures. I am thick headed enough in my own personal successes and failures with choosing good people for the job that I feel I can guess at this one and post about what I think will happen.
The irony in this, is that I hear people say they are worried about whether McCains health and age when it is more likely that a president will get shot now tie that in with Obamas own words and reference to Lincoln. It's weird.
I tend to vote with the odds. odds are.......
Barack Obama has never been shy about comparing himself to Abraham
Lincoln. He did so when he announced his candidacy at the Illinois
state capitol, where both he and Lincoln served in the legislature.
"The life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that
a different future is possible," Obama said. "He tells us that there is
power in words ... He tells us that there is power in hope." That was,
well, audacious, to say the least — and the comparisons have continued,
on issues large and small. But the most important similarity, in
Obama's mind, is how he plans to govern if elected.
Don't just assume that because people are for Obama they are young and don't know their politics. I am in my 30's own my own house,have my own business,pay my own student loans,pay for my own health insurance and have had no help from my parents since high school. Like I said in another post to Papasteeze just because you're old doesn't mean you have to take up old thoughts and become a republican like you have done. Even though I am over 30 I still find it disgusting that more and more people are losing there homes,their healthcare and their ability to send their kids to college. I am also sick an tired of the integration of church and state and putting people in office(Sarah Paliin) who think that creationism should be taught in school,books should be band from libraries and that it is her right to take away mine and my children's right to choose whether or not they want to be parents even in the case of rape.
We all should be happy that the younger generation is getting out to vote and getting excited about politics considering that they are the future!! And I know as "a crazy or angry liberal" (since that is what republicans like to call anyone who supports Obama) that I am very happy to see that there me be hope with the younger generation to get rid of some of the old stale thoughts from all of you"old republicans!!
if i remember correctly bush just fucking sat there. And theres a huge difference between voting on a bill and reacting to a situation like that.
Maybe he wants to learn more on the issue before he takes a side, unlike the current "my ideas right or wrong" administration.
no.... he was in Massachusetts at Harvard and decided to return to Illinois when he could have gone anywhere. He was president of the Harvard Law Review. Good god he could have written any ticket he wanted.
Firstly, this makes no sense. What does this have to do with being a sheep? Secondly, I neglect to answer you because the majority of what you've posted is inane, ridiculous, or has been answered in posts directed at other people, and so replying would be pointless. However, you seem unable to actually read and comprehend most of it, so i'm left wondering how old you are. That last reply to me was possibly the worst attempt at a riposte I've seen in a political thread this year, Aspendukes included.
Your question is moot. Stop posting in all caps, all you're doing is looking like an idiot. I explained pretty clearly what the present votes can mean. In the context of the example provided, they meant "No, I'm not voting for this, but I believe in your cause." You said "Bullshit", then went on to say exactly what you had before, as if you hadn't even read the post.