Mccain vs. Obama - Lets see it.
- 09-12-2008, 11:46 PM
- 09-12-2008, 11:52 PM
Can we have a third option? Undecided or third party? Or is this more to see who we think will win over who we want to or will vote for?
09-12-2008, 11:52 PM
09-12-2008, 11:53 PM
09-12-2008, 11:55 PM
"I am legally blind and if I can Squat,deadlift and over all get myself to the gym then anyone can get their a$$ in gear and get strong!!" - malleus25
09-12-2008, 11:55 PM
09-12-2008, 11:55 PM
09-13-2008, 12:29 AM
09-13-2008, 06:46 AM
There should be a 4th option for "Not voting"
“We are what we repeatedly do. Therefore, excellence is not an act, but a habit.”
09-13-2008, 07:13 AM
09-13-2008, 08:37 AM
I am not happy with the options this go around, hell I rarely am. However, the Mccain/Palin ticket is just not an option for me at all. Not truly b/c of McCain though
09-13-2008, 03:17 PM
I would literally give my left nut for a Ron Paul Presidency ( I have all the kids I want, I should be able to get by fine minus one )
09-13-2008, 03:24 PM
09-13-2008, 04:37 PM
As for VP's. Honestly they don't do much anyways, you want to pick a presidential candidate who reflects your values. I just don't want to give my paycheck to the poor. Sounds harsh but I don't believe in distribution of wealth, it is socialist and I am not a socialist.
09-13-2008, 05:22 PM
09-13-2008, 05:26 PM
EDIT: Ok, I really wouldn't, I love my balls, but I'd vote for him or donate money, but I'm sorry, I love my balls.
That's not harsh, that's life.I just don't want to give my paycheck to the poor. Sounds harsh but I don't believe in distribution of wealth, it is socialist and I am not a socialist.
09-13-2008, 05:38 PM
09-13-2008, 05:49 PM
09-13-2008, 09:03 PM
What matters most is the fact that Obama has more electoral votes than McCain. McCain was behind in the public polls for a little while, but I am surprised to see that he caught up. I'm not surprised that it happened shortly after he announced choosing a female candidate as his VP choice.
09-13-2008, 11:52 PM
I noticed there has been some Obama hatred coming out lately. A lot of groups have been blasting the internet with things of why he shouldn't be elected. Mostly recently one of the largest black church groups in the US just posted a video about it. I was shocked to see that actually.
09-14-2008, 04:59 AM
Completely agree! Quite an unfortunate development. I wonder how much, if any, of that negative stream found its way into the voting structure in this poll....Originally Posted by LakeMountD;
Product Educator | USPowders
Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.
09-14-2008, 10:31 AM
09-14-2008, 11:56 AM
09-14-2008, 10:44 PM
Whether you realize it or not, you operate within a system which inevitably reproduces the social conditions of disparity - not necessarily placing any 'Liberal Guilt' on you, if you will, simply stating that we operate in a financial climate which is not on 'level ground'; you say "I don't want to give my paycheck to the poor", but I have no doubt in my mind you readily capitalize upon a system which keeps them poor: "I have no problem taking my paycheck from the poor.
I personally have no issues with your standpoint, however. It is a simple matter of Freedom over Equality; some stand for Personal Freedoms at the cost of disparity, and some sacrifices measures of personal gain for the purpose of Equality. I just want to make sure you are considering the precipitous social conditions which produce "the poor". Assuming that personal action and personal action only produce one's socioeconomic status is an unfair analysis.
Oh, and that isn't Socialism either; I wish you Americans could better grasp what Socialism is! It is so engrained as a disparaging term within the American social-fabric - as a Cold War relic - that the term has lost all relevant meaning. Socialism's inability to prosper is a foregone conclusion, but that does not mean we have to improperly use the term! Now, I know you will say that the simple redistribution of wealth constitutes Socialism, but I promise it doesn't; if you read work on Socialism, believe me, modern day United States is incredibly far away - for better or worse - from that!
09-15-2008, 09:00 AM
However, I am glad you brought up the above point. Not sure how many economics classes you have taken as I don't know your background, but take any microeconomics class and one of the things you will learn is that there HAS TO BE poor. The country cannot run if there are not poor people. It is impossible for everyone to be rich. It is one of those things that no one wants to accept but the bottom line is it has to be that way. Why change it? Although some people who are poor might just have bad luck, the bulk of them chose to not take the higher ground. If they are uneducated and chose to be that way then why change it? Many of my friends came from the ghettos of Miami at F schools are are currently working toward their doctorate. Bottom line is I don't feel sorry for those who don't work as hard probably because I had to work so hard. Here is a good story of how I feel:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken a back, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes =2 0because she's too hung over.'
Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will b oth have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'
09-15-2008, 10:41 AM
09-15-2008, 11:08 AM
I find it odd you bring up 'Education', as an individualized choice; it is not. If, say, an individual is born into a 'poor' community, the chances are his/her access to education is either diminished, or lesser in quality than yours or mine (assuming we were both lower-to-upper middle class). The facilities, educators, administrators, and funding surrounding his/her economic choices are of a lesser quality - these are not things he/her choose Lake, quite the opposite.
Rather than continue on an affirmative line of thought, let me pose a question to you: As a seventeen year old male, born into destitute community, and being personally financially 'unequipped' yourself, how would you remove yourself from that environment to seek higher education? Your mother and father both work 12+ hours daily for minimum wage, do not possess the ability to fund private schooling, and since the inception of your academic career have not been able to foster you due to the constraints of subsistence.
Further, I find it almost insulting you insinuate that the 'poor' do not work hard; such an assumption is beyond misinformed Lake, and I mean that with no disrespect. As I stated above, abuses of the system invariably occur, but often those on the lowest gradients of economic stratification work harder than do you and I. On an anecdotal note, I would always cringe when my Venezuelan immigrant friends would tell me their Mother double-shifted daily as a housekeeper, to make less money in a month than my Mother made in a few days; now, such is not my 'Mother's' fault, nor anybody in her gradient, but merely illustrating your assumption that 'poorness'-as-a-choice is somewhat incorrect.
Finally, Microeconomics is not my preferred choice in analyzing closed systems; its methodology is incredibly assumptive, and operates on the premise of perfect competition, and the inability of individual agents to fundamentally alter market dynamics - or, in other words, it assumes that the market maintains itself in such an equilibrium that an 'equal playing field' - so to speak - is maintained. While the school of thought is equipped with much more complex mechanisms to deal with the increasing veracity of Globalization, I still feel it is somewhat ineffectual in analyzing the effects external market forces exert on individual agents. That being said, your analysis is somewhat incorrect in terms of:
Firstly, 'poor' and 'rich' are subjectively relative terms, used to denote two positions on opposing ends of the spectrum of a closed economic system; in that respect, Microeconomics does not necessitate nor presuppose 'poorness' and 'richness', it simply presupposes a certain level of economic stratification; such that a gradient of workers laborers at a level sufficiently low enough to profit from their labor, and subsequently profit from the products of their labor. In a micro sense, the individual laborer 'sells' his labor to his employer for a wage - he/she assumes that the capital he receives is worth more than both his/her labor, as well as the time/product/information he/she produced. On the other hand, the employer assumes the opposite: That the time and tasks performed by the laborer are worth more than his capital (I will refrain from delineating capital in terms of variable labor, time consumption, mechanics and so on) - in response, the employer pays the laborer.Not sure how many economics classes you have taken as I don't know your background, but take any microeconomics class and one of the things you will learn is that there HAS TO BE poor.
Now, this stratification is what must exist, to drive an economy predicated upon consumption; without the equilibrium of labor power being purchased for less than the socially necessary goods it produces, you have market failure. This, and not 'richness' and 'poorness', is what Microeconomics rightfully presupposes. However, with that being said, if you would examine the current levels of Global Stratification and tell me you feel this type of wealth centralization is 'necessary', I may call you crazy.
09-15-2008, 11:37 AM
Honestly do the same thing I did, take out loans. My mother was a single mother of 3 and my father didn't make much at all. Neither of them made a savings account for college when I was a child, nor did they have enough money to pay for my schooling.Rather than continue on an affirmative line of thought, let me pose a question to you: As a seventeen year old male, born into destitute community, and being personally financially 'unequipped' yourself, how would you remove yourself from that environment to seek higher education? Your mother and father both work 12+ hours daily for minimum wage, do not possess the ability to fund private schooling, and since the inception of your academic career have not been able to foster you due to the constraints of subsistence.
I attended a D school with a 3.7 GPA, went to FSU where I took out loans every year and decided to pursue my doctor of pharmacy where I will take out more.
If you are "that" poor then college is paid for. I received a $2000 pell grant each semester and $4000 more for being an undergrad science major, not to mention the bright futures that paid 100% of my actual tuition. I just needed to pay for housing via loans. I am not saying don't help the poor at all, so I apologize if I came off that way. What I don't advocate is redistribution of wealth, which is much different then "helping the poor". There are plenty of social programs to keep the poor on their feet, but unfortunately the tax system is so that no one wants to work hard enough (who are below the poverty line) to work above the poverty line because instead of tax credits they will be taxed and have a smaller net income. Who would want to do that?! Redistribution of wealth, in my opinion makes no sense. You are taking away from the people who have spend the most, create the jobs, and have worked to get there.
But again everyone's viewpoint is different and I respect that.
09-15-2008, 12:11 PM
Hell, the poor & middle-class ought to be glad the rich and powerful are willing to screw 'em: wouldn't want the R & P to take everything this country has made possible for them & move it all overseas - hey, wait....
09-15-2008, 12:45 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By cfiggs in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 0Last Post: 04-06-2010, 10:32 PM
- By lategainer in forum PicsReplies: 60Last Post: 02-27-2009, 01:38 AM
- By snakebyte05 in forum General ChatReplies: 82Last Post: 05-31-2006, 01:18 PM
- By good_guye28 in forum General ChatReplies: 11Last Post: 02-04-2004, 08:35 AM
- By b-boy in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 13Last Post: 12-04-2003, 08:01 AM