I recently told a friend that the main reason I am voting for Barack Obama is because he is black. He immediately condemned me as an idiot (I'm not sayin I'm not, but I am for other reasons) and said I was an irresponsible voter.

I asked if he would hear me out and let me explain myself. I told him that

1) I really have every right to vote for whomever I want for whatever reason. Better than not voting (which he did. Not because he didn't support either politician, but because he was too lazy to register and get an absentee ballot). And

2) In my opinion, the societal impact of having a black president is far greater than any political issue at this point in time. This is a golden opportunity for America to end the thought of "not being ready" for great minority politicians, and we can finally end that notion once and for all. Topics such as abortion, gay marriage, taxes, capital punishment, etc. will always be debated by people and there's never going to be a clear-cut solution unless we are overtaken by a dictator. This economic crises we're in will be solved more through Congress than the President, as are a lot of policies, so I don't feel the need to base my vote off of their plans for that. In addition, I am also voting for Obama because of his plan for Iraq and other Middle Eastern and International threats.

At the end of this, he still said that I was being stupid and persuaded by the liberal media. Keep in mind he is a steadfast conservative (despite how much he tries to claim he is an independent- which he isn't even registered as).

Why I'm voting for Obama: We don't elect a maverick or hockey-mom or a change man or Biden as anything more than a figurehead. We elect administrations behind them that will attempt to get some of the things they promise done.

John McCain: Bush III. favors corporatism and disaster capitalism, and has made no mention of attempting to close the loopholes that allow the rich making double digit millionaire bonuses to pay taxes at a lower rate than working class citizens, or even not pay in some cases. Most people are vastly ignorant of tax schemes used by hedge funds and "charitable organizations" or the fact that workers subsidize corporate jet use, and a myriad of other things. When the wealthy don't pay enough it merely raises taxes for everyone else. It is also a crime against stockholders and investors, because CEOs can have their payments deferred and reinvested in a trust owned by the company and borrow with an interest-free loan. Meanwhile the corporations pays an interest rate at above market levels, but this isnt money invested in the worker or infrastructure or anything of the sort.
http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich-Everybody/dp/1591840694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225556189&sr=8-1
I see no reason to allow this to be unregulated other than the erroneous philosophical notion that they earned everything they made. Oh, and if they close up shop and move overseas, bye bye assholes. They can't take the market with them :p This just means more opportunities for new players in the game.
Also, the people making 75k to 1 million are having their Bush taxcuts eaten up by the alternative minimum tax, which the bush campaign promised to reform but never did. It is a crime against the middle class, which subsidizes the rich, not those on welfare as the right-wing would like to have you believe.

Newsweek and Time both estimate mcCains healthcare plan will be more expensive than comrade obamas.

People don't realize is the growing trend of the government to stop doing it's job, and instead paying contractors to do everything. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted not on social plans but on contractors that overcharge and make ridiculous profits. Katrina was a disaster not because Bush failed to act, but because he expected contractors to do a better job than the government, he completely outsourced the clean-up job, with one firm charging $12,000 per body to do clean-up work.

Iraq is the definition of government waste and human waste. I could write a whole thread about how fucked up the situation is.

Sarah Palin is a direct insult to the intelligence of Americas, which is why only dumbasses support her. There exists intellectual discourse for why mccain should be considered, but sarah palin is just a complete joke. She's the paris hilton of politics. Sarah palin made me appreciate hillary clinton. Yeah, it's that bad.

These have taken a back seat with the whole economic crisis going on, but Mccain is on the wrong side of social issues like pro-choice and gay marriage. One of the fundamentals of conservatism should be to leave others' decisions alone.

Energy issues. This is a big one. I'm less concerned with global warming(frank luntz would have you call it "climate change") than I am with finding an alternative or at least something that can work side by side with gradually dwindling supplies of petroleum. Drilling in ANWR and off-shore can work but only if lots of government money is invested in finding an alternative to oil at the same time. We need a scientific investment on the scale of NASA because the free market does not have enough time(im calling you out, lazy hazy vermonter, because youe the only one that has brought up the statement that the free market is the best system equipped to handle a dwindling supply of resources. Really? Even when that market runs out on the very resource that drives it?). Our economy is set to undergo major shrinkage and nobody, left or right, wants that.

Blacks would have little excuse to not push themselves to be successful under obama. Nevermind that he is not a descendant of slaves. This is icing on the cake. I don't understand why people think that he´s going to do a hip-hop remix of the national anthem or that he's going to condone a culture of degradation, victimization, and violence. He has less than half the amount of children of sarah palin and he commands more respect than any hip hop star. Why is it so wrong to have a role-model for the 40% of this country that isn't white? I want evidence that he's promoting any sort of anti-white agenda.

socialism is a matter of perspective. Obama plans are less socialist than europe's, and many of their countries score higher on the human development index. It is written in alaska's constitution that the natural resources of the state belong to the people. There is a royalty on resources extracted. This wealth is distributed to all citizens of alaska. Why can the USA do this, but at the same time fund coups and launch a media blitz with labels of socialist and communist on any third world leader that tries to do the same?

libertarians who say both suck: I dont know if you live in denial or just don't know this, but how come on debates in this forum the subject is hardly brought up that free market economic principles have been attempted again and again in countries like indonesia, russia, chile, argentina, brazil, an uruguay? The chicago school of economics and milton friedman himself taught many intellectuals the miracles of the invisible hand, friedman gave personal lectures to chile's pinochet while he was a dictator. Unions were dissolved, Minimum wages, nearly all social programs were cut, government assets were sold, trade barriers were lifted, government spending was cut, schools were privatized, even. The CIA funded these regimes. The wall street journal endorsed these social changes. In the end inflation shot up, unemployment shot up, the poor-rich gap widened, factories that supported these regimes shut down as they couldnt compete with cheap foreign goods, and a plethora of other social issues followed. Free market stunted the growth and development of these nations, GDPs shrank. Keynesian economics > austrian and chicago. Adam Smith himself supported social programs.

John McCain: Bush III. favors corporatism and disaster capitalism, and has made no mention of attempting to close the loopholes that allow the rich making double digit millionaire bonuses to pay taxes at a lower rate than working class citizens, or even not pay in some cases. Most people are vastly ignorant of tax schemes used by hedge funds and "charitable organizations" or the fact that workers subsidize corporate jet use, and a myriad of other things. When the wealthy don't pay enough it merely raises taxes for everyone else. It is also a crime against stockholders and investors, because CEOs can have their payments deferred and reinvested in a trust owned by the company and borrow with an interest-free loan. Meanwhile the corporations pays an interest rate at above market levels, but this isnt money invested in the worker or infrastructure or anything of the sort.
http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich-Everybody/dp/1591840694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225556189&sr=8-1
I see no reason to allow this to be unregulated other than the erroneous philosophical notion that they earned everything they made. Oh, and if they close up shop and move overseas, bye bye assholes. They can't take the market with them :p This just means more opportunities for new players in the game.
Also, the people making 75k to 1 million are having their Bush taxcuts eaten up by the alternative minimum tax, which the bush campaign promised to reform but never did. It is a crime against the middle class, which subsidizes the rich, not those on welfare as the right-wing would like to have you believe.

Someone's been reading a little Naomi Klein, eh? Excellent stuff, if yo u haven't read "No Logo", "The Shock Doctrine", or "Fences and Windows", I highly suggest you stop by your local Barnes & Noble/Borders and steal one.

Zay, thanks for pointing out that I don't post here meaningfully as often as I'd like. However I can assure you I'm not lazy, just busy sometimes.

However, when I say the market will come up with the best solutions for alternative energy that will get us away from dependence on Middle East oil, it's a vast oversimplification for convenience purposes. The market is not this single entity with a magical breath that just heals everything. The 'market' simply means the dynamics of millions of people out there every day working hard, innovating, and taking risks in order to make a profit. Because there is obviously a great demand for alternative energy, as well as solutions to global warming, I can guarantee you there are thousands of companies working hard and devoting all their resources and creative energies of their people to finding these solutions that they can then sell. Including the big evil oil companies, who realize better than you or I ever could the finite nature of their product, and are working tirelessly to find ways for their company to use the billions of dollars they've invested in the infrastructure of energy discovery and production in the long term.

When I say I have the utmost faith in 'the market,' I'm simply saying I have faith in human intellect. I think humans are genius, and we can definitely come up with solutions to our problems. Not saying it's going to be easy, or that it will happen tomorrow. Just that the principles of capitalism, mainly, that individuals do things for a profit incentive, are the same principles that will lead to solutions for the energy crisis. I sincerely believe that is a better course than government mandates, which tend to be inefficient and not accomplish anything.

I'm also not saying that John McCain has my preferred platform on energy, and obviously the issue of drilling in our precious natural areas such as ANWR needs a serious and deliberate discussion removed from partisan politics. But overall, he appeals to my policy preferences way more than Obama. Relaxing restrictions on building nuclear power plants? Hell yes. Now, of course nuclear power isn't a miracle fuel as the 1950's would have you believe, as uranium and whatnot are VERY finite and rare, but we have some, and it can be very efficient and as far as I know, has a low carbon footprint but don't quote me on that. Drilling in the gulf of Mexico in cooperation with the states whose people wish to do so? Why not- China's already been doing it for years so if the shit's gonna be gone anyways, we might as well grab some of it while we can.

Wind power? Obviously this could be a promising fuel, and like I said before, millions if not billions of dollars are being invested by PRIVATE firms now in the search for viable ways of generating power from the wind. It's happening in my home state right now. One example is the oil executive who almost single handedly funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth , had an epiphany that energy independence matters, and turned coalition builder to save the environment, by the name of T. Boone Pickens. Well, it turns out he's got a billion dollars invested in wind farms in Texas; so he's running a national media campaign to promote it. That's the market working for you right there. It's not partisan, republican, democrat, socialist, or libertarian. It's the genius human mind at its finest, working unconstrained by the evil of regulations and taxation, to accomplish the goal of creating in order to better itself by convincing others that their self interests are mutual.

^that was cheesy. I'm an optimist

Someone's been reading a little Naomi Klein, eh? Excellent stuff, if yo u haven't read "No Logo", "The Shock Doctrine", or "Fences and Windows", I highly suggest you stop by your local Barnes & Noble/Borders and steal one.

I haven't read Klein, but I know who that cat is, and I have to say emphatically- LOL @ Shock Doctrine.

Go spout your Chomskyesque anti imperialist propoganda at a Nader rally, and get a proper book about free trade and the wonders it has done for the world.

I haven't read Klein, but I know who that cat is, and I have to say emphatically- LOL @ Shock Doctrine.

Go spout your Chomskyesque anti imperialist propoganda at a Nader rally, and get a proper book about free trade and the wonders it has done for the world.


The paperback edition of the Shock Doctrine that I have has a bibliography that spans over 70 pages and cites hundreds of sources. Sorry, this is a book about economic reality, not economic theory.

1. All the top ranking countries in terms of human development and standard of living, including the US, have some forms of socialism.

2. Complete market deregulation has been attempted over and over again in the 60s, 70s, and 80's in various countries and the result is always bad for the majority of people. I'm talking policies much more extreme than the american "free-market" including elimination of minimum wage, elimination of social programs, vast down-sizing of the government, liquidation of government assets sold to private entities, rights to national resources sold off , tariffs removed, etc. Profits increase immensely for big business, but the rich-poor gap widens and standard of living for people plummets. Basic necessities end up overpriced, people can't afford healthcare, inflation rises, social mobility stagnates, wages drop, inflation ensues, and wealth ends up more concentrated in the hands of a few than under "socialist" governments.

3. It always takes some kind of crisis, military coup, economic distress , authoritarian government, or other major event for these policies to be implemented. In any given democracy half the people make below average income and most make slightly above. Redistribution of wealth exists in democratic societies because people will not vote against their self-interests and knowingly eliminate the very social programs that help them in order to defend the principles of rich assholes.

4. The American standard of living is unsustainable without the cheap labor, cheap taxes, and cheap resources that weaker countries provide. That is why the media turns against any popular leader in the world world that attempts to take back resources or increase regulation of international corporations exploiting their people. The CIA and the government are well-documented in having funded, sold weapons to, and trained soldiers for dictator uprisings in Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, Uruguay, Chile, Guatemala, the list goes on and on. In school here in the US we were all taught that this was necessary to fight communism. The evidence is overwhelming that the popular government overthrown practiced mild socialism, comparable to Europe's countries.


This book has a mountain of evidence. Reality does tend to have a liberal bias.

Zay, thanks for pointing out that I don't post here meaningfully as often as I'd like. However I can assure you I'm not lazy, just busy sometimes.

However, when I say the market will come up with the best solutions for alternative energy that will get us away from dependence on Middle East oil, it's a vast oversimplification for convenience purposes. The market is not this single entity with a magical breath that just heals everything. The 'market' simply means the dynamics of millions of people out there every day working hard, innovating, and taking risks in order to make a profit. Because there is obviously a great demand for alternative energy, as well as solutions to global warming, I can guarantee you there are thousands of companies working hard and devoting all their resources and creative energies of their people to finding these solutions that they can then sell. Including the big evil oil companies, who realize better than you or I ever could the finite nature of their product, and are working tirelessly to find ways for their company to use the billions of dollars they've invested in the infrastructure of energy discovery and production in the long term.

When I say I have the utmost faith in 'the market,' I'm simply saying I have faith in human intellect. I think humans are genius, and we can definitely come up with solutions to our problems. Not saying it's going to be easy, or that it will happen tomorrow. Just that the principles of capitalism, mainly, that individuals do things for a profit incentive, are the same principles that will lead to solutions for the energy crisis. I sincerely believe that is a better course than government mandates, which tend to be inefficient and not accomplish anything.

I'm also not saying that John McCain has my preferred platform on energy, and obviously the issue of drilling in our precious natural areas such as ANWR needs a serious and deliberate discussion removed from partisan politics. But overall, he appeals to my policy preferences way more than Obama. Relaxing restrictions on building nuclear power plants? Hell yes. Now, of course nuclear power isn't a miracle fuel as the 1950's would have you believe, as uranium and whatnot are VERY finite and rare, but we have some, and it can be very efficient and as far as I know, has a low carbon footprint but don't quote me on that. Drilling in the gulf of Mexico in cooperation with the states whose people wish to do so? Why not- China's already been doing it for years so if the shit's gonna be gone anyways, we might as well grab some of it while we can.

Wind power? Obviously this could be a promising fuel, and like I said before, millions if not billions of dollars are being invested by PRIVATE firms now in the search for viable ways of generating power from the wind. It's happening in my home state right now. One example is the oil executive who almost single handedly funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth , had an epiphany that energy independence matters, and turned coalition builder to save the environment, by the name of T. Boone Pickens. Well, it turns out he's got a billion dollars invested in wind farms in Texas; so he's running a national media campaign to promote it. That's the market working for you right there. It's not partisan, republican, democrat, socialist, or libertarian. It's the genius human mind at its finest, working unconstrained by the evil of regulations and taxation, to accomplish the goal of creating in order to better itself by convincing others that their self interests are mutual.

^that was cheesy. I'm an optimist

I'm not against the government fostering competition. The point is look at NASA and look at the russian space program. One communism, one democracy. The end result was the same. Vast state funding that led to non-profitable, but ultimately very enriching exploration of space in terms of scientific accomplishment. Right now, entities like virgin galactic can barely get rockets out of the atmosphere. Their venture capital is banking on the belief that people will pay for space tourism. There's nothing wrong with that. Oil on the other hand, is the blood of our lifestyle. Without oil or a suitable alternative that delivers comparable investment->energy ratios we are pretty much doomed. that's why I believe instead of giving GM and Ford 25 billion dollars to keep building cars inferior in quality to Japanese competitors and not letting them fail, they should grant money to Tesla motors for developing an awesome piece of technology that could spawn an entire new american industry. It's common sense.

25B to Tesla or other manufacturers for a smaller and more efficient car would be a better idea. Besdies, there has been alot fo administrative upheaval at Tesla as of late, so their company isn't exactly the most stable thing.

I'm not against the government fostering competition. The point is look at NASA and look at the russian space program. One communism, one democracy. The end result was the same. Vast state funding that led to non-profitable, but ultimately very enriching exploration of space in terms of scientific accomplishment. Right now, entities like virgin galactic can barely get rockets out of the atmosphere. Their venture capital is banking on the belief that people will pay for space tourism. There's nothing wrong with that. Oil on the other hand, is the blood of our lifestyle. Without oil or a suitable alternative that delivers comparable investment->energy ratios we are pretty much doomed. that's why I believe instead of giving GM and Ford 25 billion dollars to keep building cars inferior in quality to Japanese competitors and not letting them fail, they should grant money to Tesla motors for developing an awesome piece of technology that could spawn an entire new american industry. It's common sense.

I would much prefer the 25B given back to those who worked hard for it.... but still, your plan makes more sense to me than giving away 25 billion perfectly good dollars to 2 perfectly terrible companies.... let 'em go under, I say.

I recently told a friend that the main reason I am voting for Barack Obama is because he is black.

Look, I think that Obama even being a serious contender for the presidency is a milestone in race relation in this country, nevermind if he wins. I still think you are an idiot for voting for him just because he is black. I'd say the exact same thing for someone voting for McCain only because he is more pro-life.

There are too many very, very important issues we must weigh. I think we can all agree that getting the fuck out of Iraq, not being an aggressor to Iran, and not being a windsock to public opinion is much more important than whether or not someone is pro-life, is a Muslim, or is black.

I would much prefer the 25B given back to those who worked hard for it.... but still, your plan makes more sense to me than giving away 25 billion perfectly good dollars to 2 perfectly terrible companies.... let 'em go under, I say.

More invisible hand jacking you off every time you talk about the free markets determining who survives? The free market doesn't work when you have the average consumer who is just as smart as Sarah Palin and a sack of hammers. The notion that Ford and GM are "terrible companies" is laughable, and you parroting that points back to the stupid consumer breaking the free markets.

More invisible hand jacking you off every time you talk about the free markets determining who survives? The free market doesn't work when you have the average consumer who is just as smart as Sarah Palin and a sack of hammers. The notion that Ford and GM are "terrible companies" is laughable, and you parroting that points back to the stupid consumer breaking the free markets.

The average consumer is certainly way more rational than Sarah Palin, which is why they aren't buying the large, inefficient offerings that Ford and GM have built their entire business model on... which is why Ford and GM's sales are way, way down compared to Japanese companies making more efficient and sensible cars.

How is that a laughable notion? GM and Ford have made bad decisions by refusing to adopt, or adopting too slowly. Thus they lose. Simple as that.

I don't know why every comment I make seems to ruffle your feathers so much my friend. Why so much animosity? Your elitism blinds you, and causes you to make nonsensical statements like 'the stupid consumer breaking the free markets,' I don't even know what that means......


I'm not "parroting" idealism here. In fact, you're the one that keeps bringing it up. I simply said those two companies don't deserve government bailout money when it would probably be better for everyone involved (consumers including all of us, employees, pensioners) if those companies folded and their plants were taken over by Japanese automakers who can run them more efficiently. Or some other outcome. I obviously have no right to make suggestions to them as I am not a shareholder (and damn glad for the fact!) but it's clear something major will have to happen and it's not sustainable for our government to keep these entities alive artificially.

The average consumer is certainly way more rational than Sarah Palin, which is why they aren't buying the large, inefficient offerings that Ford and GM have built their entire business model on... which is why Ford and GM's sales are way, way down compared to Japanese companies making more efficient and sensible cars.

How is that a laughable notion? GM and Ford have made bad decisions by refusing to adopt, or adopting too slowly. Thus they lose. Simple as that.

I don't know why every comment I make seems to ruffle your feathers so much my friend. Why so much animosity? Your elitism blinds you, and causes you to make nonsensical statements like 'the stupid consumer breaking the free markets,' I don't even know what that means......


I'm not "parroting" idealism here. In fact, you're the one that keeps bringing it up. I simply said those two companies don't deserve government bailout money when it would probably be better for everyone involved (consumers including all of us, employees, pensioners) if those companies folded and their plants were taken over by Japanese automakers who can run them more efficiently. Or some other outcome. I obviously have no right to make suggestions to them as I am not a shareholder (and damn glad for the fact!) but it's clear something major will have to happen and it's not sustainable for our government to keep these entities alive artificially.

GM and Ford both had small and extremely efficient cars back in the 80s. Geo made a car that got over 60 mpg. They didn't sell because idiot consumers didn't want them. Can you blame GM and Ford for following the free market and giving the customer what it wanted? You can't just walk away from billions of dollars of investment and throw down billions more in new investment just because the things you are selling get bought up by functioning retards who only think about making long term investments on short term whims.

Why the animosity? Foremost you are an idiot who blithely believes the free market solves everything. Secondly, did you even read your post? You call me an elitist? I drive a fucking 25 year old car, make less than the poverty line, eat ramen and cheap frozen pizza for dinner and often nothing for breakfast, and you equate me with a dumbass hipster driving his Prius to the organic foodmart?

One of the cornerstones to our economy is the automotive manufacturing industry. Most of the research GM and Ford do are based in America, despite selling their vehicles world-wide. (I don't believe I've seen a Japanese or European car that is rated for 638 hp get 20mpg. Testament to GM's R&D deivision.) If you added the revenue of Nissan and Honda together, GM alone still massively outperforms. Toyota itself makes a bit more. That makes a whole heaping helping of sense, lets let one of the main industries of America fail and replace them with businesses that not only make less money, but are not even based in this country.... That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Toyota is the new Wal-Mart: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15182

Ford didn't go from the assembly line to world-class manufacturer by treating his workers like shit.