View Poll Results: Rock the Vote 2008

Voters
257. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama

    150 58.37%
  • McCain

    94 36.58%
  • Undecided still

    13 5.06%
11-05-08 12:08 PM
937 ... 7891011 ...
tools
  1. wnm's Avatar
    Wnm, check where you are getting your facts from, the nyslimes isnt the most accurate news source.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    I'm not representing them as facts, and clearly the first two links are commentary/opinion. The article explains the key portions of McCain's health care plan, and analyzes their impact on the current health insurance system.

    What is clear is that he wants to rely on a self regulating market approach. If that's for you, fine, but it is not for me.
    09-16-08 01:00 PM
  2. exelant's Avatar
    Vinnie, your earlier post mentioned taxes and that you already pay too much. I'm sure all of us would like more money in our pockets, but according to the strictly non-partisan taxpolicycenter.com, the tax burden for each of us will be more than $1000 higher under McCains promises. All one can do is speak of the candidate's promises until one of them is elected. Also, Obama is the only one promising tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000 a year.

    Slv, you asked which person living under national healthcare would choose it over our system? I know a number of Europeans and everyone of them prefers their county's national health care. Sure US medicine is the one that develops most treatment protocols. The reason for this is simple: research and development.

    US industry spends far more on R&D than anyone in the world -- and this includes medicine. This is not going to change as long as there is a profit involved. And the money you spend at the doctor's office will not affect this. Of course, talking about what people we know prefer is not a valid argument -- using anecdotes is inaccurate at best.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-16-08 01:39 PM
  3. vinnie_dugan's Avatar
    Ok first off, education is supposed to be handled by the state, but lets move on to the bigger issue. This is America, the land of freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and most of all freedom of choice. The American people should not be FORCED to educate themselves. I believe there is a term for what type of government you are talking about wnm and its termed socialism. Socialism has been shown to fail time and time again. The system cannot support itself. Exelant, as far as a nationalized healthcare system goes, just look at the horror stories that come out of england and canada. People waiting 6 months for knee surgery, lotteries for dentistry, its absolutely absurd.

    I have one question to ask wnm, do you believe its right to take the top earners of this country a higher percentage than the average person?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-16-08 07:28 PM
  4. exelant's Avatar
    I would say I want the wealthy to pay the same tax rate as I do. Last year my wife and I paid 26% of our taxable income -- we're in the top 10%. Aside from taxes, the current Republican administration has absolutely dropped the ball and abandoned their regulatory responsibility.

    Environmental regulations are no longer vigorously enforced and criminal workplace safety prosecutions have given way to weak civil penalties. The list of things no longer addressed by the Republicans is endless

    Sure there are horror stories concerning other country's national health care plans, there's horror stories about our own. Try getting cancer if you don't have health insurance -- it's a death sentence in America, the richest nation in the world. I'm not advocating national health care. But the McCain plan flat scares the H3ll out of me.

    No one here is advocating socialism -- the same old chicken little, the sky is falling line conservatives always trot out when trying to discredit their opposition. We all believe in the free market and want to be fairly compensated for our work. We want a equal chance to become wealthy -- equal chance based on hard work.

    I've asked before in this thread, can't you get the connection between the drop in union membership and the decline in wages? Sure that big old anti free market union horror. Why can't employees just take what the company offers and quit asking for more! Well look around, real wages are down for the first time in decades due to decisions made without labor pressure. None of the problems facing us can be blamed on the right's old scapegoats -- Democrats and labor. Big business has had it's way with America with almost no interference, and we are now paying the price for their actions.

    The Republicans have had the White House 38 of the last 50 years. And they've had at least one legislative branch for most of the nineties and two thirds of the 21st century. No my Republican friends, if you want to find who's responsible for our current troubles, you can start by looking in the mirror.
    The right has won the war against labor and we're in for a rough time before things get better. Not me, though. I'm a manager and the more money I save the organization, the more I make. That includes being able to low ball an evaluation and reduce pay actions. Since I qualify for early retirement and am in a critical skill category, I have been able to resist the pressure, but for how long?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-16-08 10:40 PM
  5. the_sandman_454's Avatar
    I am completely disgusted with both parties and both candidates they're offering up. Have been for years. Why can't anybody put up a fiscally conservative, candidate who is in favor of smaller government and less government interference in our lives? If they would do that, I'd vote for that person regardless what party affiliation they had.

    That having been said, I'm going to hold my nose and vote McCain because he aligns more closely with my personal views than does Obama. I'm just going to hope one of these years someone finally puts up a halfway decent candidate like above so I can stop this "lesser of two evils" crap.
    09-16-08 11:48 PM
  6. Andy90's Avatar
    As for taxes, Obama plans to enforce MORE taxes on oil companies and shut down approx. A quarter of their production. And what will this do, you might ask? Economics 101: Decrease supply, increase demand and your result is higher prices!(Not to mention the added cost from the extra tax!)

    Foreign policy: Biden said in his acceptance speech that we need to turn reconstruction control over to the Iraqis and then turns around and says in the next sentence that we need to "rebuild" Georgia and place troops there(*double-take* Deja vu, anyone?)

    Also Economics 101: Recessions happen, its part of the business cycle! C'mon people! I learned that in 7th grade Civics!!) And with an economy as big as the U.S. should it really be surprising that things are the way they are?

    Healthcare: A woman in England was taken off of medication that was helping keep her alive and the so-called healthcare system took her off of it because "it was too expensive". Dunno about you, but I would really rather NOT have a healthcare system like that!

    Education: The Constitution gives education to the states, not the federal government! The government isn't supposed to interfere at all really... And while I don't advocate dropping out, or not going to college, I also believe in freedom of choice! We have already had freedom of speech limited before Bush ever passed the Patriot act! It was limited by a few liberal Dems (what a surprise! And I will post the name of the bill when I find it again, hadn't seen anything about it in a while.) I don't want my other freedoms infringed upon! If someone doesn't want to further their education, or even go to school at all, guess what? THAT'S THEIR CHOICE!!!!

    (By theway, if your going to dispute this, plz do research first!!! Most of this was from the candidates' own mouths or from sites such as taxpolicycenter.com)

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by Andy90; 09-17-08 at 01:34 AM.
    09-17-08 01:26 AM
  7. exelant's Avatar
    Still using anecdotal comments as fact to prove a point and then say do research. To say Obama is going to shut down production is a simply not true. More scare tactics with no facts to back them up. One can only offer what the Republicans have done with power they've wielded for the last half century as an example of the future with them.

    It's obvious Andy has not read most of the posts in this thread. If you've been to the taxpolicycenter's site then you must know the tax burden of McCain's promises is a third more that Obama's.

    There's more at stake in this election than taxes. Throwing up the usual smoke screen won't work anymore. People can see what's going on and you're going to have to do better than anecdotes.

    As we've said, no one is advocating national health care. Read the plans, Andy, if you honestly think McCain's is better, then vote for him -- you're going to anyway. But I suggest anyone else not convinced by skimpy "facts" and exclamation marks, to at least look at it -- it'll scare the heck out of you.

    McCain's plan will end employer provided health care. Employers will drop their plans and give us a check to purchase our own. This will make employer health care spending a negotiated pay item. With the demise of unions and professional negotiators for employees, we will be forced to spend an increasing amount to purchase our own health care because it will be lumped in with pay -- as in "we gave you a 3.5% percent raise" -- but 2.5% of it will be used to pay for increased healthcare costs; instead of the current system where employers give you 3% raise and pay 90% of health care increases as is the case now. Worker wages will go down even more under this scenario. His plan is an indirect tax to pay for healthcare for the poor -- and you would have us believe he is on our side?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by exelant; 09-17-08 at 12:27 PM.
    09-17-08 06:27 AM
  8. wnm's Avatar
    Updating what I can at the moment:

    Taxes:

    VD, it is more progressive to tax those with greater ability to pay at a higher rate. I think that is fair. BTW, I am one with the greater ability to pay.

    Certainly, every one would want to pay less taxes, so why have taxes at all. If you need roads or transportation to get to work maybe some one will build it for you. Want to fight the war on terror, then take your guns and go over to Iraq or Afghanistan. Want clean water or air, clean it yourself. Are those toys safe for your kids, better build a chemistry lab. Yes I'm being sarcastic. The problem about tax cuts is that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have a price, and no one is willing to give up the latter.

    Here is an interesting table and the article it came from:


    t r u t h o u t | Obama, McCain and the Truth About Taxes

    Health Care:

    I have not seen anything from either candidate advocating a British style national health where health care workers work for the government. There are private clinics, or rationed care in Canada.

    Obama's plan is to get more people insured while maintaining the employer based health insurance system. McCain's plan is self regulating free market.

    Education:

    I have no problem with state controlled education, and frankly anyone who pays attention through 12 years of school should be a pretty well educated student. I never like No Child Left Behind, because all it does is teach test taking.

    A few things we need to do:

    Provide funding for school infrastructure so kids have the schools, teaching materials and technology they need.

    Reward teachers who work in poorer performing districts.

    Reward teachers based on merit, and pay unions more if they self police themselves to get rid of poor teachers.
    09-17-08 08:09 AM
  9. Hi-Definition's Avatar
    You know what irks me; hypocrites...particularly the ones that tell others to 'read-up' on the stance of a particular ticket towards a wide array of topics...when they themselves haven't versed themselves on what each ticket's stance is; AND the REAL IMPLICATIONS of the respective stance of each ticket.

    I'll dish out the benefit of doubt; and say that perhaps you have been versed...but your interpretation of what your eyes have perused; hasn't connected w/ your mind's synapsis.

    I take a lot of these issues seriously and to heart...since I, just as any other citizen of this country (let alone the world) should have...has a vested interest in America's future; and the role that it plays internationally as well.

    It is no way my intention to even remotely come across as brash or stand-off'ish..not at all..I suppose it's simply my yearning for wanting a tremendous change that our country and the world needs. Too many people have unfairly suffered because of the tremendous power of a select few...who have abused and neglected that power.

    The FACT is; yes FACT...that voting into office the candidate that shares 90% of the same brain as the one in office right now...should not be a choice acted on by any sane person. How is this not the truth? None of this is fabricated.
    Last edited by Hi-Definition; 09-17-08 at 10:12 AM.
    09-17-08 10:01 AM
  10. exelant's Avatar
    Now, shall we look at environmental issues -- my field. I have some facts from the nonpartisan, nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. The Environmental Integrity Project (Environmental Integrity Project) is a
    nonpartisan and nonprofit organization established in March 2002 to advocate for more effective enforcement of environmental laws. EIP was founded by Eric Schaeffer, who was director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Regulatory Enforcement. He resigned in 2002 after publicly expressing his frustration with efforts of the Bush Administration to weaken enforcement of the Clean Air Act and other laws.

    I will paste some of their findings and put up a link to their full report.

    The new EIP report examines the track record of 10 years of EPA enforcement and finds it is down by about a quarter or more in terms of court filings, criminal investigations, civil fines and criminal penalties. The report also credits the hard work of EPA staff in obtaining high-value settlements under difficult circumstances. Entitled “Paying Less to Pollute: Environmental Enforcement Under the Bush Administration,” the report focuses on a comparison of EPA and Department of Justice enforcement results from fiscal years 2002 to 2006 to fiscal years 1996 through 2000. EIP Director Eric Schaeffer said: “The bad news here is that it now costs less to
    pollute. Over the past five years under the Bush Administration’s EPA and
    Department of Justice, environmental violators have been less likely to face court actions, be subject to criminal investigation, or pay civil or criminal penalties. There is one bright spot at the EPA: recent settlements that require polluters to spend billions of dollars to control emissions at power plants and refineries, or modernize sewage treatment systems.”

    Highlights of the EIP data include:
    · Cases filed down. The Justice Department has become reluctant to sue violators that refuse to settle. The Department has filed fewer than 16 lawsuits a year since January 19, 2001 – compared to about 52 a year in the last three years of the Clinton Administration. These statistics count those complaints filed by the government without simultaneously lodging a consent decree.
    · Civil penalties down. Civil penalties in EPA enforcement cases have declined about 24 percent -- from an annual average of $106.8 million between fiscal years 1996 and 2000, to an annual average of $81.4 million between FY 2002 and 2006.
    · Criminal fines down. Criminal fines have declined 38 percent -- from an annual
    average of $104.6 million between FY 1996 and 2000, to an average of $64.6 million between FY 2002 and 2006. Jail time for convicted defendants has declined only slightly (5 percent) over the same period.
    · Criminal investigations down. The number of criminal investigations started every year has dropped 23 percent, from an annual average of 536 between FY 1996 and 2000, to 411 between FY 2002 and FY 2006. The number of criminal investigationsreached an all time low in FY 2006 of 305, or less than half the number initiated in FY 1998.
    · Value of enforcement settlements up, but endangered. EPA enforcement
    settlements secured more than $26 billion in pollution control investments between FY 2002 and 2006 (not including Superfund). Almost all of these cleanups were obtained through consent decrees with power plants, refineries, and sewage treatment or collection systems.

    The Administration has tried to weaken or eliminate New Source Review requirements, which accounted for more than half the injunctive relief obtained in settlements in FY 2006. The reluctance to file lawsuits may also jeopardize the ability to achieve high-value settlements in the future. Putting the enforcement settlement data into context, Schaeffer explained: “EPA’s
    enforcement program deserves credit for obtaining settlements that require such significant expenditures in pollution control.

    Unfortunately, this notable achievement is threatened by EPA administrators’ continued efforts to weaken the environmental laws its own staff keep trying to enforce. The Office of Air and Radiation has undone some of these benefits by boring new loopholes in the Clean Air Act that weaken emission monitoring requirements and exempt major sources like power plants and the ethanol industry from regulation.” The EIP report includes additional data on key EPA enforcement trends and indicators, based on government data .

    I'm sure this research won't be good enough for you, Andy. Just let me know because I have hundreds of similar information from a broad cross section of sources. This stuff is only important if you want clean water to drink or air to breathe.

    Environmental Integrity Project.
    09-17-08 10:07 AM
  11. Andy90's Avatar
    Unless my memory is failing, I do believe that I didn't say anything about environmental issues.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-17-08 10:49 AM
  12. vinnie_dugan's Avatar
    In my personal opinion, the whole environmental thing is a tool used by the left to distract the american people from the real issues at hand...

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-17-08 11:00 AM
  13. Andy90's Avatar
    The environmental thing has recently become a bigger issue.

    Also, just did some reading: Obama DOES want to increase taxes on oil. Better to give tax breaks to the corporations and HOPE that it trickles down, than to tax the corporations even more and KNOW that it WILL trickle down. If you put pressure on the big corporations, it will be the average people, the ones dependent on gas, that will feel the pinch.
    I for one, as a Republican, would much rather have an alternative energy source. In fact, I plan to build an electric car within the next year. But taxing the oil companies a "windfall profits" tax is not the answer to the problem.
    09-17-08 11:18 AM
  14. exelant's Avatar
    In my personal opinion, the whole environmental thing is a tool used by the left to distract the american people from the real issues at hand...

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Really? You don't mind a little trichloroethelene in your drinking water? How can any reasonable person even comment on this statement. Now, if one disagrees with you they are labeled the "left"? You know nothing about me or my background. If you did, you'd know how wrong that label is, but you're not interested in the truth, are you?
    09-17-08 11:53 AM
  15. vinnie_dugan's Avatar
    Wow, me and andy90 are friends, he certainly knows his stuff.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-17-08 11:53 AM
  16. exelant's Avatar
    "As for taxes, Obama plans to enforce MORE taxes on oil companies and shut down approx. A quarter of their production. And what will this do, you might ask? Economics 101: Decrease supply, increase demand and your result is higher prices!(Not to mention the added cost from the extra tax!)" Andy90

    Above is Andy's quote. If you think this represents accuracy and truth, I have no response for that either. As I have said, if anyone wants me to prove anything I've written, just ask and I'll provide specifics -- not slogans and propaganda.

    Obama has pledged to facilitate more exploration and to work to increase domestic supplies. In addition, he wants to increase R&D for alternative supplies and push manufacturers to increase mileage standards -- something McCain has consistantly voted against.

    Vinnie, it's politics. I guess the difference between us is I don't feel a need to hate those who disagree with me. I'd be happy to be friends with anyone and I have plenty of conservative friends. One can't live in the country and live the horse/rodeo lifestyle my wife and I live without being friends with Republicans.
    09-17-08 12:08 PM
  17. exelant's Avatar
    Unless my memory is failing, I do believe that I didn't say anything about environmental issues.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    No, you didn't Andy. But it is another critical issue facing us that is not being addressed by McCain. There is more to running our country than the tax argument. I am not attacking you personally, and I find it admirable you are going to build an electric car. We as a nation have got to stop sending so much of our wealth to the oil producing countries who hate us.

    One doesn't have to buy a Prius to help. I bought a Focus that gets 35 miles to a gallon and has a near zero emmision engine for $9450. Man, I saved money and am helping reduce our dependence on foriegn oil. As you enter the workforce and learn your place in it -- just how little you actually mean to the "company," you might come to the realization that these organizations are just using you. Pay attention to their policys and you'll see you have a choice to not become a pawn for them and to think for yourself.
    09-17-08 12:22 PM
  18. Andy90's Avatar
    That wasn't slander. Obama even said that he wanted to impose windfall profit taxes.

    I do care about our environment. The electric car has a double bonus: NO emissions as far as pollution goes, and practically destroys my dependence on any gas, foreign or domestic. I just don't believe raising taxes on an already over-priced, over-rated fuel is the right way to do it. A good tactic would be to further promote alternative fuels, instead of just talking about it. IMO, that's the main problem with most politicians. They're not afraid to talk the talk, but when the time comes to walk the walk they do a complete 180. A good example would be Obama's policy change on same-sex marriage. He changed to against to get "religious" votes. (Mind you, I know that's a touchy subject. I was just using it as an example, merely to help convey my point.)

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

    And I agree. Politics should NEVER influence friendship. My ex-gf was a Dem, and was gonna vote for Hillary if she got the nomination. But neither of us let it affect our relationship.

    Two things that have been food for thought for me: Instead of taxing us more, why not just use what you give us back in income taxes?(Just wondering, it seems kinda weird to me though....). And also about same-sex marriage: We enjoy freedoms not enjoyed elsewhere such as speech, press, right to bear arms, and so on. Should we then be able to tell couple that want to get married, that they can't when this is supposed to be the land of the free? I am a Christian, but still yet is this a wrong way to approach this matter? Just wondering if anyone has the same views or if anyone has any input. As I said, this has just been some food for thought for me. ;-)
    Last edited by Andy90; 09-17-08 at 02:05 PM.
    09-17-08 12:24 PM
  19. Hi-Definition's Avatar
    A good example would be Obama's policy change on same-sex marriage. He changed to against to get "religious" votes. (Mind you, I know that's a touchy subject. I was just using it as an example, merely to help convey my point.)
    An even BETTER example would be of McCain picking an inept running mate to boost the female vote and party base to accomplish the grand task of getting into the White House...disregarding what's best for the country if his running mate needs to assume his role.
    Last edited by Hi-Definition; 09-17-08 at 02:14 PM.
    09-17-08 02:11 PM
  20. Andy90's Avatar
    An even BETTER example would be of McCain picking an inept running mate to boost the female vote and to accomplish the grand task of getting into the White House...disregarding what's best for the country if his running mate needs to assume his role.
    Touche! ;-)
    09-17-08 02:13 PM
  21. wnm's Avatar
    Love the signature.
    09-17-08 02:31 PM
  22. vinnie_dugan's Avatar
    Well hi def, if you really want to put things that way, then lets blame the whole entire democratic party for making a junior senator who is essentially getting votes based on his skin color, the presidential candidate. I dont care how much you want to argue with me, it was a very strategic and planned move on the democratic parties part to put an inexperienced guy at the forefront. He has been groomed by the older senators to be where he is today. He is a fantastic public speaker(except when his teleprompter goes out), he's young and vibrant, plus he is black, which ensures almost all of the black vote. Look at Obamas track record, he has done almost nothing in the senate. He is friends with a well known domestic terrorist, his pastor of 20 years hates whites and America. In Obamas book, he blames problems on white people. He promises change that will break this country. He has known ties to Hamas. I mean the list goes on, the libyan dictator supports barack obama. The colombian militant group FARC supports barack obama. I mean if you want to nit pick, the guys middle name is hussein. Where do I stop? The guy is a left wing radical who wants to bring socialism to this country. I can't for the life of me see how anyone who knows these things about Obama can support him.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-17-08 03:36 PM
  23. Hi-Definition's Avatar
    Well hi def, if you really want to put things that way, then lets blame the whole entire democratic party for making a junior senator who is essentially getting votes based on his skin color, the presidential candidate. I dont care how much you want to argue with me, it was a very strategic and planned move on the democratic parties part to put an inexperienced guy at the forefront. He has been groomed by the older senators to be where he is today. He is a fantastic public speaker(except when his teleprompter goes out), he's young and vibrant, plus he is black, which ensures almost all of the black vote. Look at Obamas track record, he has done almost nothing in the senate. He is friends with a well known domestic terrorist, his pastor of 20 years hates whites and America. In Obamas book, he blames problems on white people. He promises change that will break this country. He has known ties to Hamas. I mean the list goes on, the libyan dictator supports barack obama. The colombian militant group FARC supports barack obama. I mean if you want to nit pick, the guys middle name is hussein. Where do I stop? The guy is a left wing radical who wants to bring socialism to this country. I can't for the life of me see how anyone who knows these things about Obama can support him.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    With your ignorant logic; I can call you a blanketed racist and biggot on MANY fronts then...and with that same ignorant logic...I can say that many people AREN'T voting for him because of the very same thing that you say some people ARE going to vote for him...his color (the first of many ignorant points you've spewed). I truly feel sorry for people like Obama in the realm of public service...they have such an unruly, unfair and crude path to trek. I also feel immensely sorry for people like you.
    Last edited by Hi-Definition; 09-17-08 at 03:49 PM.
    09-17-08 03:47 PM
  24. Andy90's Avatar
    Me, personally, I have no problems with a woman or black pres., And any form of racism should've been dissolved long ago. Sadly, they weren't. There is one good point though: experience. Obama has been in legislation for 8 years (i think! correct me if i'm wrong!) and has written 2 books, but no legislation. While experience isn't everything, it does count for quite a bit. To me, it seems as if he hasn't done everything in his power to help people. He may be a good pres. if he gets elected. Only time can tell. You can't count on politicians' words at this point, not fully anyways. Whichever way this election goes, its gonna be an interesting next 4 years. Also, not to be racist (as I am not a racist person), but he does have an advantage in some areas because of his skin color. Not saying its bad or anything, but it is the truth.

    (By the way: To exelant: I'm also considering starting an Electric Car club of some sort at the college I go to. Doing things like going to shows and races. Still getting all the details though. I look forward to a day when we no longer need Exxon/Mobil, or any fossil fuel company for that matter.)
    Last edited by Andy90; 09-17-08 at 05:50 PM.
    09-17-08 05:47 PM
  25. vinnie_dugan's Avatar
    Hi def, you make me laugh. Do a poll of ten random black people and see why they are voting for obama. I guarantee you they will say change. Then ask them what changes, and they wil l have no idea. It's obvious, just like women are voting for mccain because of palin, a lot of black people are voting for obama simply because he is black. If you think that is a racist statement, then you sir are ********.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-17-08 05:54 PM
937 ... 7891011 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD