Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
knoxsouthy wrote:
Samy,
Christians.
Quote:
Define us
Christians.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Now the AP poll has McCain ahead too. Uh-oh, Dems.
Now the AP poll has McCain ahead too. Uh-oh, Dems.Follow
Be more specific, because you don't speak for all Christians.
knoxsouthy wrote:
Ash,
No just Christians. And if you think murdering a child after it's been delivered is Christian you are living in la la land. Obama supports infanticide, no Christian supports this and if someone says they do they aren't a Christian.
Quote:
Radical Right-Wing Conservative Christians.
No just Christians. And if you think murdering a child after it's been delivered is Christian you are living in la la land. Obama supports infanticide, no Christian supports this and if someone says they do they aren't a Christian.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
knoxsouthy wrote:
Obama supports infanticide
It's only ok to kill babies if they're living in Baghdad or Afghanistan when you bomb them.
Fact.
Fact.
Quote:
Troll wrote: Obama has been a staunch opponent of this;
Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Look it up.
Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Look it up.
Quote:
[]Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the [Federal Infant Born Alive Act], which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion.
According to Obama:
Quote:
[T]hey have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
According to FactCheck.org:
Quote:
The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life....
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life....
So, there you have it. These are definitional votes. What this has to do with the polls is beyond me.
As for the polls:
RCP Average...09/09-09/17....47.1-O to 45.2-M....Obama +1.9
Gallup Tracking...09/15-09/17....48-O to 44-M...Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking...09/15-09/17....48-O to 48-M...Tie
Hotline/FD Tracking...09/15-09/17....46-O to 42-M...Obama +4
Battleground Tracking...09/10-09/17....45-O to 47-M...McCain +2
CBS News/NY Times...09/12-09/16....49-O to 44-M...Obama +5
Quinnipiac...09/11-09/16....49-O to 45-M...Obama +4
Pew Research...09/09-09/14....46-O to 46-M...Tie
Reuters/Zogby...09/11-09/13....47-O to 45-M...Obama +2
Newsweek...09/10-09/11....46-O to 46-M...Tie
After the week McCain has been having, it's hard to imagine things are going to be this close for much longer. It's amazing how quickly things can change with a candidate in just a few days though. Link
EDIT: to tinker with crappy graph
Edited, Sep 18th 2008 7:20pm by Addikeys
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
We know how you loves polls.
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama leads Sen. John McCain by 3 percentage points, according to CNN's "poll of polls."
1 of 2 The senator from Illinois is ahead of McCain in national polls by 3 percentage points, 47 percent to 44 percent. Obama was up by 2 points in the poll of polls released earlier Thursday.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/campaign.wrap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama leads Sen. John McCain by 3 percentage points, according to CNN's "poll of polls."
1 of 2 The senator from Illinois is ahead of McCain in national polls by 3 percentage points, 47 percent to 44 percent. Obama was up by 2 points in the poll of polls released earlier Thursday.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/campaign.wrap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
gbaji wrote:
In the grand scheme of things, I'd rather a mediocre Republican sit in office than a sharp as tacks Democrat *because* of the platform differences.
...but if he's a mediocre Republican, than wouldn't he not be able to even keep up with that 'platform' you mention?
In the end, I would figure that when it comes to leading this country, I'd rather it be someone who is actually fit for the job versus just picking Grandpa Cain and Mother Palin because they wear a sticker on their shirt that says Republican and one can only hope they even know what that means.
...and umm...about Palin's 'platform'......
Sir Exodus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
In the grand scheme of things, I'd rather a mediocre Republican sit in office than a sharp as tacks Democrat *because* of the platform differences.
...but if he's a mediocre Republican, than wouldn't he not be able to even keep up with that 'platform' you mention?
That's not the issue.
Think of it this way. There are two people engaged in a fist fight. One of them wants to steal my wallet. The other one wants to prevent that guy from stealing my wallet. Which one should I help win? No matter how poorly the first guy does at preventing my wallet from being stolen, there's no possible reason for me not to support him, or even more ridiculously to support the other guy.
Does that make more sense? A mediocre Republican president at worst doesn't do a good job protecting me from the Dem agenda. In every way, having a Dem in office is worse since he'll actively be pursuing the very agenda I disagree with. There's no rational reason to ever support a Democrat from my perspective, doubly so one who so clearly identifies with the very worst aspects of the Democrat platform.
How many years have you been on this forum and you haven't figured out yet that the single issue I care most about is taxation? I've elaborated on this issue at length as to why it's important to me dozens of times. Obama is practically the poster child of all the things I disagree with about the Dem platform. He claims he wont raise taxes (tries to claim he'll lower them in fact!), but the thing to look at is his spending plan. He's promised a massive spending increase. He's also promised not to raise taxes *and* he's promised to reduce the debt.
Um... Those three things can't all be true. And if the historical pattern holds, the one that'll end up being broken will be the "not raising taxes" promise. It's the one that Dems care the least about, so it'll give. If a Republican were making the same set of promises, I'd assume that either the debt or the spending would go, but when it's a Dem? It'll be the taxes...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Does that make more sense? A mediocre Republican president at worst doesn't do a good job protecting me from the Dem agenda.
Unfortunately gbaji, this logic doesn't make sense at this point in time. Say what you will, but regardless of who ends up controlling congress, taxes will be raised. Once McCain hits office--hopefully not--he will slowly back away from his populist platform of lowering everyone's taxes.
Paskil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Does that make more sense? A mediocre Republican president at worst doesn't do a good job protecting me from the Dem agenda.
Unfortunately gbaji, this logic doesn't make sense at this point in time. Say what you will, but regardless of who ends up controlling congress, taxes will be raised. Once McCain hits office--hopefully not--he will slowly back away from his populist platform of lowering everyone's taxes.
He's right about his partisanship being good for him, it's just a rather selfish position.
You can say "I'd rather have a crappy Republican president than an excellent Democrat one, because the Republican will benefit me more" but you're essentially ignoring what happens to the rest of the country when they get a crappy president. Your Republican might totally mismanage his government while in office, but superficially benefit you personally; the rest of the country gets screwed over because they get mismanagement with no benefit.
gbaji wrote:
How many years have you been on this forum and you haven't figured out yet that the single issue I care most about is taxation?
Well, you've been here much longer than I have, so I'm sure you caught the article Annabella linked in the OoT.
Particularly, this tidbit:
Quote:
To make matters worse, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who retains the status of secular sainthood, said over the weekend that the country can't afford the $3.3tn in tax cuts McCain has proposed without concomitant spending reductions - something the libertarian Greenspan would surely embrace, but which would prove politically toxic to McCain.
Needless to say, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, is a hopeless cause. Last week, Palin defended the government's bailout of the home-mortgage behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the grounds that they had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers". Whoops. As private corporations, they were costing the taxpayers nothing. Now that the government has taken them over, they could wind up costing taxpayers plenty.
Needless to say, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, is a hopeless cause. Last week, Palin defended the government's bailout of the home-mortgage behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the grounds that they had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers". Whoops. As private corporations, they were costing the taxpayers nothing. Now that the government has taken them over, they could wind up costing taxpayers plenty.
Well, you'll probably say the article is biased, but here's another segment that stood out for me:
Quote:
During the presidential primaries, his main challenger, Mitt Romney, never tired of pointing out that McCain had once told the Wall Street Journal: "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
Umm...
Moments like those, Hilary saying "We don't want another 4 years of the last 8 years" becomes more and more apparent.
I mean, really. How much of a @#%^ up does one have to be before you can conclude that while a democrat would go for things you wouldn't agree with, at least he won't ***** this country over royally?
Unless you are going to argue that Bush was great. At that point, I'll have to direct my attention to Jophiel and ask him how the hell can he maintain an argument with you for so long.
Edited, Sep 19th 2008 10:27am by Exodus
zepoodle wrote:
Paskil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Does that make more sense? A mediocre Republican president at worst doesn't do a good job protecting me from the Dem agenda.
Unfortunately gbaji, this logic doesn't make sense at this point in time. Say what you will, but regardless of who ends up controlling congress, taxes will be raised. Once McCain hits office--hopefully not--he will slowly back away from his populist platform of lowering everyone's taxes.
He's right about his partisanship being good for him, it's just a rather selfish position.
You can say "I'd rather have a crappy Republican president than an excellent Democrat one, because the Republican will benefit me more" but you're essentially ignoring what happens to the rest of the country when they get a crappy president. Your Republican might totally mismanage his government while in office, but superficially benefit you personally; the rest of the country gets screwed over because they get mismanagement with no benefit.
As Smash has pointed out many times, a Republican administration is only an advantage to those making in excess of $200K/year. For those of us in the middle class it actually increases our tax burden to compensate.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
For those of us in the middle class it actually increases our tax burden to compensate.
I wonder whatever happened to that guy...
Edited, Sep 19th 2008 10:11am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
For those of us in the middle class it actually increases our tax burden to compensate.
I wonder whatever happened to that guy...
Edited, Sep 19th 2008 10:11am by Jophiel
I miss him.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
On a side-note, did anyone catch the softball Hannity interview of Palin?
knoxsouthy wrote:
Apparently you don't realize that congress has a lower approval rating than W.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
zepoodle wrote:
He's right about his partisanship being good for him, it's just a rather selfish position.
You can say "I'd rather have a crappy Republican president than an excellent Democrat one, because the Republican will benefit me more" but you're essentially ignoring what happens to the rest of the country when they get a crappy president. Your Republican might totally mismanage his government while in office, but superficially benefit you personally; the rest of the country gets screwed over because they get mismanagement with no benefit.
As Smash has pointed out many times, a Republican administration is only an advantage to those making in excess of $200K/year. For those of us in the middle class it actually increases our tax burden to compensate.
Yup. Which should only highlight the inherent flaw in Zepoodle's assumption. I don't support the Republican position on lower taxes out of some selfish assumption that it will benefit *me* more. I honestly believe that lower taxes on people who make significantly more than I do, benefits not just me, but everyone else who lives and works in the same economy.
It's not about being selfish. Voting for the party that will tax other people to provide you direct benefits *is* selfish. Demonizing those who'd be taxed more in order to make this palatable *is* selfish (and mean). Saying that you don't support taxes even on other people and even when their tax dollars might help you out is being specifically non-selfish. I held the same position on taxes when I was working a nearly minimum wage job and living out of back of my car. How is that selfish?
I believe in that position on taxes because I believe that it's wrong to take from other people just because you think they can afford it. I also happen to believe that the wealth held by those people overwhelmingly helps those in the working and middle classes more than any government programs we'd get as a result of those taxes. How much more clear can I be here? My position is not selfish. It *can't* be selfish because, as has been pointed out many times, I'm not in the tax bracket being discussed. I don't make 200k or more a year, yet I still think it's wrong to raise taxes on those who do.
So, the first thing to do if you want to understand my position is to *not* make assumptions about why I hold it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I honestly believe that lower taxes on people who make significantly more than I do, benefits not just me, but everyone else who lives and works in the same economy.
Common fallacy. It doesn't. There is no correlation between lowering the marginal tax rate and per person GDP growth, since the end of WWII. It has gone down a lot.
yossarian wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I honestly believe that lower taxes on people who make significantly more than I do, benefits not just me, but everyone else who lives and works in the same economy.
Common fallacy. It doesn't. There is no correlation between lowering the marginal tax rate and per person GDP growth, since the end of WWII. It has gone down a lot.
That's your opinion. The point here is that I'm not doing this out of "selfish" motivations. We can debate the effects that taxation have on an economy at length if you want, but can you please accept that *I* believe that keeping taxes low on businesses and wealthy individuals benefits working and middle class people?
They were questioning *why* I support this, not whether my reasons are correct. I think you're getting way ahead of yourself to simply assume that your economic beliefs are right and therefore no one can act on a different one so they must actually be lying somehow when they say they are. I don't accept your assumptions about taxation effects. Period.
You may disagree with my opinions, but I get a bit miffed when people try to insist that I'm not acting consistently somehow...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74gbaji,
Posted: Sep 19 2008 at 5:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Also. I'm not sure exactly what your "it has gone down a lot" statement refers to? Are you saying that the per-person GDP rate has gone down a lot? Or the correlation between marginal tax rate and that rate (which seems like an odd thing to even attempt to measure, but who knows)?
#75gbaji,
Posted: Sep 19 2008 at 5:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh. And just to continue the subject of "common fallacy", let me start with a couple points.
#76gbaji,
Posted: Sep 19 2008 at 6:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I love how inconvenient facts are so openly responded to on this board...
Recent Visitors: 170
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (170)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Now the AP poll has McCain ahead too. Uh-oh, Dems.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC