Barack Obama or John McCain?

[InHuman]

Here's another one. During a Democratic presidential debate in July 2007 Obama was asked "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?" To which Obama replied "I would."

Then,three weeks ago,he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "only if it can advance the interest of the United States"

So Obama lied when he said he would meet Iranian leaders without precondition.

Full story here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4999088&page=1

Thats the great big bombshell the anti-Obama crowd has?

[Plainbob13]

I have to go with McCain. I pray to god that joke called Obama isn't elected. What we need now in the US is a good president, too bad none are running. What we don't need is another Jimmy carter.

[Radian]

I have to go with McCain. I pray to god that joke called Obama isn't elected. What we need now in the US is a good president, too bad none are running. What we don't need is another Jimmy carter.

Agreed.

[ODIN-X]

I have to go with McCain. I pray to god that joke called Obama isn't elected. What we need now in the US is a good president, too bad none are running. What we don't need is another Jimmy carter.

Hmm, I like the comparison.

Good point Bob.

imo.

[Lt_Ripley]

obama. I wish all voters would have had to put their nics up to follow the numbers. I wonder how many have voted more than once with different nics .

[Claizen]

obama. I wish all voters would have had to put their nics up to follow the numbers. I wonder how many have voted more than once with different nics .

Cant you just accept that half of the people in this UM thread doesnt support Obama?

EDIT: Oops, half meaning that split 50/50 between McCain and Obama.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Claizen

[HKCavalier]

Here's another one. During a Democratic presidential debate in July 2007 Obama was asked "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?" To which Obama replied "I would."

Then,three weeks ago,he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "only if it can advance the interest of the United States"

So Obama lied when he said he would meet Iranian leaders without precondition.

This is such nonsense. Your argument depends on what "without precondition" means. In order for this to be a "lie," it would have to mean something like "any reason or rationale whatsoever." In the context of the actual debate, seemed pretty clear to me that "precondition" meant some kind of actions or concessions made by these governments to appease us in one way or another; as if the President meeting with them would be some kind of cookie we would give them for being good. And Obama stated his opposition to that kind of "diplomacy." He went into some detail to clarify his position, but people don't tend to pay any attention, would rather get their information from like-minded spin doctors, rather than go to the source. The phrase "only if it can advance the interest of the United States" simply means, "Hey, look, I'm not an idiot, okay?"

Even your article conceded that what's going on is merely a shift in "tone." Extra, extra! Obama is guilty of emphasising different aspects of his policies for different audiences! Call out the National Guard, he must be the Antichrist!!!

[Lt_Ripley]

Cant you just accept that half of the people in this UM thread doesnt support Obama?

EDIT: Oops, half meaning that split 50/50 between McCain and Obama.

hhhmmm no. because on past posts and issues the democrat opinion has always polled higher.

[Wickian]

hhhmmm no. because on past posts and issues the democrat opinion has always polled higher.

People do have changes of heart. And just because someone is a democrat that doesn't make a vote for Obama mandatory.

[Incorrigible1]

People do have changes of heart.

I did today, after hearing the Ludacris song. Now, I'm voting for Obama! (NOT!)

[Synergy]

That's bull and you know it. There are vast policy differences, which show up in terms of actual actions - witness Russ Feingold's attempts to defend civil liberties, and the fact that the Democrats actually include health care as a major issue and tried to pass it back in the Clinton Era (and were blocked by Republicans and a number of conservative Democrats). I'm sick of this Naderite, "both parties are the same - waaaaaaah!" crap that keeps emerging to justify the fact that rather than picking the lesser of two evils in a political system that was founded on compromise (look up the "Great Compromise" from the Constitutional Convention - the decision to have one of the two legislative bodies being unrepresentative - the Senate), the Naderites chose the Path of Self-Righteous Do-Nothingness that resulted in a worse outcome.

The two parties stand for party preservation, corporate interests and nothing more. What happened when the Democrats regained control of the House? Oh yeah, that's right, the war appropriations went up by 50 billion dollars. Nancy Pelosi was adament about ending the war. Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats have done nothing of the sort. Congress's approval rating is at 22% with some polls putting approval as low as 9%. Bill Clinton didn't exactly do a stellar job as president, and need I mention Jimmy Carter? We need more of a reason to vote for a candidate than simply their loosly defined party affiliation.

For the record, let me ask anyone out there - do you seriously think that an Al Gore Presidency would have been no different from a Bush Presidency? And don't give me that crap about how Nader only brought out people who wouldn't have otherwise vote - he took in tens of thousands of left wing voters in Florida where only 1000 more for Al Gore would have made the difference, and many of his voters were drawn from "wealthy liberals" - i.e., the environmentalist well-to-do who usually support Democrats.

First of all, Gore won the election, it was stolen from him. If an investigation had been undertaken, Gore would have been president. Secondly, are you forgetting the thousands of left-wing voters that voted for Bush? How about we blame the voters that chose Bush and drop this leftist propaganda BS? Why blame the only candidate that stood up for justice and democracy? Third, the supposition that Al Gore would have been a better president is unfalsifiable, so drop it. It's wishful thinking. Clinton bombed Iraq too you know. Fourth, Al Gore ran a terrible campaign. He "lost" it on his own. Gore didn't even win his home state.

Let's get a few things straight. Our country was not founded on a two party system (our founding fathers hated the idea of political parties).

Every candidate has an equal right to run (although the current system has warped to the point where the system is unconstitutionally slanted towards the two major parties).

Either everyone is a spoiler, or nobody is.

If you are against third parties, you are against democracy. To attack the idea of third parties is political bigotry, plain and simple.

Just for the record, I was a tentative Obama supporter a few months ago, so drop the Nader fanatic label. Nader's policies, plans and positions on issues appeal to me much more than Obama's do. As a matter of fact, polls show that Nader's positions are in the majority, not the minority. The only thing preventing people from voting for him is that "he has no chance to win." That's nothing more than a propaganda scare tactic. You should vote on principle, not popularity. More than half of Americans don't even vote because they are so disenfranchised by the whole electoral process. If only a fraction of these American citizens decided to participate, it would be a much different story. In addition, Obama's stance on the war in the middle east coupled with his poor voting record have turned me away indefinitely. I hadn't looked into third party candidates until after I became dissatisfied with Obama's empty promises. If a third party candidate such as Nader was not in the race, I would not vote. Then again, that's what people like you want.

Why choose between Hitler and Stalin when George Washington is available? Just because Hitler and Stalin are more "popular" (a direct result of corporate influence translating into slanted media coverage) and thus that poor Washington "doesn't have a chance" doesn't justify the stance that everyone must vote for Stalin so that we elect the lesser of the two evils. That's not how democracy works. If you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you still get an evil. If you vote popularity over principle you are not voting responsibly.

The Republican Party only became a major party because the Whig Party collapsed in the early 1850s - in fact, the reason it became a major party was because so many former Whigs flocked to its banner. It was one of the Big Two in the 1860 election.

In any case, a single-district, single-voter system encourages the formation of a two-party system, since third-party candidates don't get the "50%+1" votes to actually win seats. If you don't like it, then campaign for a Parliamentary system - stop b****ing about how wrong it is that the system is dominated by two parties when it was designed that way.

Third party candidates have won elections at the state level before. If they were given fair, proportional representation at the national level, we would have a tighter race. The fact of the matter is, very few voters even know Nader is running, let alone have they even as much as heard the names "Bob Barr, Cynthia Mckinney or Chuck Baldwin." Corporate media bias in favor of corporate party candidates? Go figure. Anti-corporation dissent cannot be tolerated.

What you are saying is, don't stand up for what you believe in, because you don't have a chance. If you have that mentality, perhaps you should move to China. America doesn't need your pessimistic view obstructing the democratic process.

It would have only taken 1000 voters more for Gore to win Florida and the election - are you seriously telling me that out of the 75,000 odd voters who voted for Gore, many of whom were drawn from groups like the Greens and the like who usually vote on leftist issues (not to mention that Gore had been pro-environmentalist since before the Clinton Administration), that many wouldn't have voted for Gore as a second choice, resulting in his victory?

Face it, you got self-indulgent; 8 years of Clinton Presidency left you thinking that it didn't really matter if you chose the lesser of two evils, and, hey, if Bush wins, well, a little "shock" to the system would be a good thing, right?

I'll stick with actually working for a solution rather than glorifying in my All-Mighty Ability To Do Nothing While Feeling Self-Righteous About It. Is it comfortable up there in the clouds?

Your implicit solution: Eliminate all third party competitors (even though both major parties have proven inadequate).

I think Jesse Ventura put it well when he answered a question concerning how he feels about the two party system: "I think the two-party system is phenomenal. We get one more choice than Communist Russia did."

Edited August 2, 2008 by AstroPro

[Wickian]

Third party candidates have won elections at the state level before. If they were given fair, proportional representation at the national level, we would have a tighter race. The fact of the matter is, very few voters even know Nader is running, let alone have they even as much as heard the names "Bob Barr, Cynthia Mckinney or Chuck Baldwin." Corporate media bias in favor of corporate party candidates? Go figure. Anti-corporation dissent cannot be tolerated.

If Nader is indeed running in the '08 election, I've never heard of it( don't even know what the guy looks like). I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I only heard his name maybe once or twice outside of the internet and debates, and even in the debates they mostly gave him bs questions to make him out to look like a conspiracy theorist. He actually had to ask to answer a relevant question instead of the questions he got about what his opinions are on popular theories. And he's not even a third party runner....

People would have to be blind, deaf and ignorant to think we have a fair election system.

[Guardsman Bass]

The two parties stand for party preservation, corporate interests and nothing more. What happened when the Democrats regained control of the House? Oh yeah, that's right, the war appropriations went up by 50 billion dollars. Nancy Pelosi was adament about ending the war. Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats have done nothing of the sort. Congress's approval rating is at 22% with some polls putting approval as low as 9%. Bill Clinton didn't exactly do a stellar job as president, and need I mention Jimmy Carter? We need more of a reason to vote for a candidate than simply their loosly defined party affiliation.

Nice nitpick to avoid addressing the point I made, which is that there remain vast policy differences between the two parties. You bring up the Iraq example, but the Democratic stance, by and large, was never to simply cut off from the Iraq War immediately; they wanted a specific time table to get out, which is distinct from the Republicans, who attacked any form of time table (until recently).

I don't think you are giving Clinton his due. Clinton pulled off a highly successful deficit reduction package in 1993 that helped create the surpluses of the late 1990s, along with better economic growth (by lowering the long-term interest rates). Carter, for all of his mishaps, presided over a great increase in fuel economy in cars (relative to the time period), something the Republicans did not address.

First of all, Gore won the election, it was stolen from him. If an investigation had been undertaken, Gore would have been president. Secondly, are you forgetting the thousands of left-wing voters that voted for Bush? How about we blame the voters that chose Bush and drop this leftist propaganda BS? Why blame the only candidate that stood up for justice and democracy? Third, the supposition that Al Gore would have been a better president is unfalsifiable, so drop it. It's wishful thinking. Clinton bombed Iraq too you know. Fourth, Al Gore ran a terrible campaign. He "lost" it on his own. Gore didn't even win his home state.

I don't exactly call conservative democrats "left-wing voters"; they've crossed the threshold before, with Reagan. This still doesn't address the fact if even a small fraction of those left-wing voters in Florida had voted for Gore, then the recount would never have even been necessary; he would have won the state outright at the beginning (albeit in a close victory).

Your point about how Al Gore would have been a better president is laughable; while we obviously can not predict what he would have done in entireity, he had a record from his terms as Vice President, as well as earlier efforts in the Senate. At the very least, it is highly likely that he would have been a much more environmentally friendly president, since he was more environmentalist than Clinton from the beginning (Gore really pushed for a carbon tax early on), and continued to advocate for environmentalism both during that period and after the 2000 election.

As for Al Gore losing his own state, well, who cares? Tennessee was a fairly conservative state, and for all the b****ing about how Gore did on the campaign, he still came very close to winning the Presidency (in spite of running after 8 years of Democratic presidency and sitting in Clinton's shadow).

Let's get a few things straight. Our country was not founded on a two party system (our founding fathers hated the idea of political parties).

No ****, except that wasn't my point; my point was that the system as designed effectively resulted in a two-party system; Simple Majority Single Representative representation almost always does that except when major regionalism is involved (see Mexico).

Every candidate has an equal right to run (although the current system has warped to the point where the system is unconstitutionally slanted towards the two major parties).

How so? The most you could possibly come up with are the recent attempts by Democrats to exclude Nader from debates and the like in 2004, and frankly, I don't see the problem; Nader's representation among the polled public was so low that if you are going to give him a platform, you might as well draw all the others on board, including the Nazis and the like.

Either everyone is a spoiler, or nobody is.

If you are against third parties, you are against democracy. To attack the idea of third parties is political bigotry, plain and simple.

Let me spell it out for you. In a simple majority district, the winner is the candidate who gets either 50% of votes plus one voter at a minimum, or a plurality in many cases (meaning they simply get the most votes, majority or not). Now suppose you have three parties: Party X, a libertarian group representing 25% of the population; Party Y, a group of social conservatives who represent 35% of the population; and Party Z, a left-leaning party with 40% of the public. If everyone of these parties simply runs their own candidate, then Party Z always wins, regardless of the fact that they are actually outnumbered. Therefore, there is a strong incentive for Party X and Party Y to find some common ground in order to field winning candidates. Or Party X finds common ground with Party Z to get a candidate they like in office, and so forth. In other words, it's hardly bigotry to point out that third parties are an inane idea in a political system like the United States; the simple fact of the matter is that the system, by its very nature, favored a two-party system, since the above means that small third parties never win representation.

If you don't like it, then campaign for a Parliamentary system with proportional representation.

Just for the record, I was a tentative Obama supporter a few months ago, so drop the Nader fanatic label.

I don't see how the two are necessarily exclusive. One could easily be a Nader fanatic while liking Obama, or have supported Nader in his past presidential bids.

Nader's policies, plans and positions on issues appeal to me much more than Obama's do. As a matter of fact, polls show that Nader's positions are in the majority, not the minority. The only thing preventing people from voting for him is that "he has no chance to win." That's nothing more than a propaganda scare tactic. You should vote on principle, not popularity.

Not if you actually want to win seats and change things, which might actually require you to make compromises (and as I said, the United States in its current form was founded on a compromise).

More than half of Americans don't even vote because they are so disenfranchised by the whole electoral process. If only a fraction of these American citizens decided to participate, it would be a much different story. In addition, Obama's stance on the war in the middle east coupled with his poor voting record have turned me away indefinitely. I hadn't looked into third party candidates until after I became dissatisfied with Obama's empty promises. If a third party candidate such as Nader was not in the race, I would not vote. Then again, that's what people like you want.

"If only." You might want to look at other factors that limit the number of voters, like the lack of Same Day Voter Registration throughout most of the country, as well as poorly scheduled voting times.

By all means, support your principle, undivided, against the possibility of actually getting some of what you want realistically. I hope that self-righteousness is a great comfort to you - it's not a comfort to people who actually want to see some of what they desire exist in reality.

Why choose between Hitler and Stalin when George Washington is available? Just because Hitler and Stalin are more "popular" (a direct result of corporate influence translating into slanted media coverage) and thus that poor Washington "doesn't have a chance" doesn't justify the stance that everyone must vote for Stalin so that we elect the lesser of the two evils. That's not how democracy works. If you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you still get an evil. If you vote popularity over principle you are not voting responsibly.

bull. You are voting to get realistically get some of what you want over none of what you want. In other words, you compromise, based on real differences between candidates (and, as I pointed out in the case of Gore's environmentalism, they actually do exist).

Third party candidates have won elections at the state level before. If they were given fair, proportional representation at the national level, we would have a tighter race. The fact of the matter is, very few voters even know Nader is running, let alone have they even as much as heard the names "Bob Barr, Cynthia Mckinney or Chuck Baldwin." Corporate media bias in favor of corporate party candidates? Go figure. Anti-corporation dissent cannot be tolerated.

You're joking, right? Bob Barr has been in the news because of concerns that he might act as a spoiler, and whenever Nader jumped into the past previous races he always made it into the major news outlets.

For the record, I'm actually in favor of turning the House of Representatives into a limited proportional representation body (meaning that parties representing 5% or more of the population would receive a seat depending on their proportion of voters).

What you are saying is, don't stand up for what you believe in, because you don't have a chance. If you have that mentality, perhaps you should move to China. America doesn't need your pessimistic view obstructing the democratic process.

I'm saying, be realistic. Get some of what you want, rather than none of it. You might not realize it as a Nader voter, but not all of us can subside on a diet of self-righteousness - we generally want political results, no matter how minor.

Your implicit solution: Eliminate all third party competitors (even though both major parties have proven inadequate).

I think Jesse Ventura put it well when he answered a question concerning how he feels about the two party system: "I think the two-party system is phenomenal. We get one more choice than Communist Russia did."

I said nothing of the sort. I simply said that they tend to be worthless, since the very nature of how American electoral representation is designed (whether intentional or not) punishes them.

[SoCrazes]

I believe Ron Paul has the best interests of the USofA and he has experience in congress. Obama and McCain? Look at the donaters to their campaigns (big oil on both). As a family man, I'm tired of these multinational corporations running the show while the executives of these companies, as well as their bed-fellows in D.C. get rich. "Go RP!"

[danielost]

The two parties stand for party preservation, corporate interests and nothing more. What happened when the Democrats regained control of the House? Oh yeah, that's right, the war appropriations went up by 50 billion dollars. Nancy Pelosi was adament about ending the war. Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats have done nothing of the sort. Congress's approval rating is at 22% with some polls putting approval as low as 9%. Bill Clinton didn't exactly do a stellar job as president, and need I mention Jimmy Carter? We need more of a reason to vote for a candidate than simply their loosly defined party affiliation.

First of all, Gore won the election, it was stolen from him. If an investigation had been undertaken, Gore would have been president. Secondly, are you forgetting the thousands of left-wing voters that voted for Bush? How about we blame the voters that chose Bush and drop this leftist propaganda BS? Why blame the only candidate that stood up for justice and democracy? Third, the supposition that Al Gore would have been a better president is unfalsifiable, so drop it. It's wishful thinking. Clinton bombed Iraq too you know. Fourth, Al Gore ran a terrible campaign. He "lost" it on his own. Gore didn't even win his home state.

Let's get a few things straight. Our country was not founded on a two party system (our founding fathers hated the idea of political parties).

Every candidate has an equal right to run (although the current system has warped to the point where the system is unconstitutionally slanted towards the two major parties).

Either everyone is a spoiler, or nobody is.

If you are against third parties, you are against democracy. To attack the idea of third parties is political bigotry, plain and simple.

Just for the record, I was a tentative Obama supporter a few months ago, so drop the Nader fanatic label. Nader's policies, plans and positions on issues appeal to me much more than Obama's do. As a matter of fact, polls show that Nader's positions are in the majority, not the minority. The only thing preventing people from voting for him is that "he has no chance to win." That's nothing more than a propaganda scare tactic. You should vote on principle, not popularity. More than half of Americans don't even vote because they are so disenfranchised by the whole electoral process. If only a fraction of these American citizens decided to participate, it would be a much different story. In addition, Obama's stance on the war in the middle east coupled with his poor voting record have turned me away indefinitely. I hadn't looked into third party candidates until after I became dissatisfied with Obama's empty promises. If a third party candidate such as Nader was not in the race, I would not vote. Then again, that's what people like you want.

Why choose between Hitler and Stalin when George Washington is available? Just because Hitler and Stalin are more "popular" (a direct result of corporate influence translating into slanted media coverage) and thus that poor Washington "doesn't have a chance" doesn't justify the stance that everyone must vote for Stalin so that we elect the lesser of the two evils. That's not how democracy works. If you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you still get an evil. If you vote popularity over principle you are not voting responsibly.

Third party candidates have won elections at the state level before. If they were given fair, proportional representation at the national level, we would have a tighter race. The fact of the matter is, very few voters even know Nader is running, let alone have they even as much as heard the names "Bob Barr, Cynthia Mckinney or Chuck Baldwin." Corporate media bias in favor of corporate party candidates? Go figure. Anti-corporation dissent cannot be tolerated.

What you are saying is, don't stand up for what you believe in, because you don't have a chance. If you have that mentality, perhaps you should move to China. America doesn't need your pessimistic view obstructing the democratic process.

Your implicit solution: Eliminate all third party competitors (even though both major parties have proven inadequate).

I think Jesse Ventura put it well when he answered a question concerning how he feels about the two party system: "I think the two-party system is phenomenal. We get one more choice than Communist Russia did."

You really should pay closer attention to the news. Voter fraud is taking place today payed for by democrats. I forget the state, but half of their counties are under investigation.

Al Gore investigated that election 12 times, recounted the votes, changing the rules 12 times. The only time he won was the 12th time.

[danielost]

I believe Ron Paul has the best interests of the USofA and he has experience in congress. Obama and McCain? Look at the donaters to their campaigns (big oil on both). As a family man, I'm tired of these multinational corporations running the show while the executives of these companies, as well as their bed-fellows in D.C. get rich. "Go RP!"

If Ron Paul had made it this far big oil would have been donating to his run too.

[Wickian]

If Ron Paul had made it this far big oil would have been donating to his run too.

Maybe, too bad we'll never know <=[.

[Trixipixi]

If Ron Paul had made it this far big oil would have been donating to his run too.

the whole scenario stinks of nazi germany. with an oligarchy running the show, and the only ones represented are corporate interests. while wages are stagnant. consumer prices are going through the roof. and lay-offs are frequent. this is what it looks like when your war machine stumbles. and destroys your economy, and the fabric of your society.

[SoCrazes]

If Ron Paul had made it this far big oil would have been donating to his run too.

Check out his donater list and quit assuming.

[SoCrazes]

the whole scenario stinks of nazi germany. with an oligarchy running the show, and the only ones represented are corporate interests. while wages are stagnant. consumer prices are going through the roof. and lay-offs are frequent. this is what it looks like when your war machine stumbles. and destroys your economy, and the fabric of your society.

NAFTA and SPP, WMDs in Iraq, Hugo Chavez, Afghanistan, CAFTA, and now Iran to finish us off.

[SoCrazes]

If Ron Paul had made it this far big oil would have been donating to his run too.

d'LOST,

I'm not going to give you the numbers; however, you can see each candidate's campaign contribution profile at http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

You can also enter in the names of big oil (and others) people to see which campaign they gave.

[Startraveler]

I believe Ron Paul has the best interests of the USofA and he has experience in congress. Obama and McCain? Look at the donaters to their campaigns (big oil on both).

In the 2008 election cycle, Obama has received $394,465 from the oil and gas industry, about 3.6 times what Ron Paul received from them ($108,381). John McCain has received far more than any other candidate this cycle, $1,332,033. >.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Startraveler

[Synergy]

You really should pay closer attention to the news. Voter fraud is taking place today payed for by democrats. I forget the state, but half of their counties are under investigation.

I'm very well aware of that, but the allegation was that it was Ralph Nader's fault that Al Gore lost the election, which is absurd. As a matter of fact, the Democrats were primarily responsible for Ralph Nader not making it on the ballot in Pennsylvania in 2004. While volunteers collected signatures to get Nader on the ballot, the Democrats sabotaged the initiative by having people sign with fake names. This has been well documented.

"Attorney General Tom Corbett's presentment . . . alleges that individuals with ties to the House Democratic Caucus conducted illegal activities on state time, successfully keeping consumer activist Ralph Nader off the state's 2004 presidential election ballot." [Source]

"Pennsylvania court struck Ralph Nader's name from the state's ballot yesterday, declaring that nearly two-thirds of the signatures on his nominating petitions were invalid or had been forged in what the court called an unparalleled case of election fraud. . . . In reviewing signatures, it became apparent that in addition to signing names such as Mickey Mouse, Fred Flintstone, John Kerry and the ubiquitous Ralph Nader, there were thousands of names that were created at random and then randomly assigned either existent or nonexistent addresses by the circulators." [Source]

Nice nitpick to avoid addressing the point I made, which is that there remain vast policy differences between the two parties. You bring up the Iraq example, but the Democratic stance, by and large, was never to simply cut off from the Iraq War immediately; they wanted a specific time table to get out, which is distinct from the Republicans, who attacked any form of time table (until recently).

The two parties are about as "vastly different" as Coke and Pepsi. Sure, one is a little sweeter than the other, but they are both still Colas.

Barack Obama has been very vague on Iraq. He has been unwilling to commit to any reasonable time table. In the debates last year, Tim Russert asked Obama whether he was willing to vow that all troops would be out by the end of his first term in 2012. Obama danced around that commitment. Obama has insisted that we must shift the bulk of our forces to Afghanistan and has set the stage for the invasion of Iran based on the same false pretenses that thrust us into Iraq. By leaving a small contingent in Iraq we are simply fanning the flames of terrorism by continuing to occupy the holy land. This is what the Jihad is all about. We are only creating more terrorists by being over there. Barack Obama's stance on Israel is also unacceptable. In short, Obama will not end war in the Middle East, but will continue the perpetual war cycle for the good of the corporations, which will continue to destroy our economy and kill innocent civilians and loyal American soldiers.

Any candidate that votes to extend the PATRIOT Act and passes FISA (after being adamently against it) is not worth voting for. That's just more of the same.

[Startraveler]

For the most part, I like Nader. I do. But let's take a particular issue and see where the three candidates stack up. We'll look at their thoughts on poverty, in part because it was the signature issue of my (and Ralph Nader's, incidentally) favored Democrat in the primaries, John Edwards. So, on poverty:

John McCain: No plan. No thoughts.

Ralph Nader: Nader offers a seven point plan for ending poverty:

Seven Point Plan to End Poverty in the United States:

As the wealthiest country in the world, with high productivity per capita, a country that produces an abundance of capital, credit, technology and food, we can end poverty. Yet, according to the Bureau of the Census, poverty and hunger for children and adults is increasing rather than decreasing -- 34.6 million Americans lived in deep poverty, 12.1% of the U.S. population. Many millions of Americans live in what is called 'near poverty' by the Labor Department. We must make ending poverty a priority and weave that goal into a network of policies:

• Truly Progressive Taxation

• An End to huge Corporate Subsidies and Military Budget Waste

• Job Creation

• Equal Pay for Women

• Child-Care

• Living Wages for All Workers

• Restore the critical Social Safety Net

It's hard to disagree with these liberal platitudes though I'm not really sure what he intends this to encompass.

Barack Obama:

Barack Obama's Plan

Expand Access to Jobs

• Help Americans Grab a Hold of and Climb the Job Ladder: Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.

• Create a Green Jobs Corps: Obama will create a program to directly engage disadvantaged youth in energy efficiency opportunities to strengthen their communities, while also providing them with practical skills in this important high-growth career field.

• Improve Transportation Access to Jobs: As president, Obama will work to ensure that low-income Americans have transportation access to jobs. Obama will double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program to ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account.

• Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Supports: Obama will work to ensure that ex-offenders have access to job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling, and employment opportunities. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program and reduce barriers to employment.

Make Work Pay for All Americans

• Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families.

• Create a Living Wage: Obama will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing.

• Provide Tax Relief: Obama will provide all low and middle-income workers a $500 Making Work Pay tax credit to offset the payroll tax those workers pay in every paycheck. Obama will also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 per year.

Strengthen Families

• Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies.

• Support Parents with Young Children: Obama will expand the highly-successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all 570,000 low-income, first-time mothers each year. The Nurse-Family Partnership provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families.

• Expand Paid Sick Days: Today, three-out-of-four low-wage workers have no paid sick days. Obama supports guaranteeing workers seven paid sick days per year.

Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing

• Create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Obama will create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.

• Fully Fund the Community Development Block Grant: Obama will fully fund the Community Development Block Grant program and engage with urban leaders across the country to increase resources to the highest-need Americans.

Tackle Concentrated Poverty

• Establish 20 Promise Neighborhoods: Obama will create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in areas that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement in cities across the nation. The Promise Neighborhoods will be modeled after the Harlem Children's Zone, which provides a full network of services, including early childhood education, youth violence prevention efforts and after-school activities, to an entire neighborhood from birth to college.

• Ensure Community-Based Investment Resources in Every Urban Community: Obama will work with community and business leaders to identify and address the unique economic development barriers of every major metropolitan area. Obama will provide additional resources to the federal Community Development Financial Institution Fund, the Small Business Administration and other federal agencies, especially to their local branch offices, to address community needs.

• Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas.

Barack Obama's Record

• Tax Relief for Low-Income Working Families: Obama created the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families in 2000 and successfully sponsored a measure to make the credit permanent in 2003. The law offered about $105 million in tax relief over three years.

• Housing: In the Illinois State Senate, Obama championed multiple pieces of legislation to help low-income families find adequate affordable housing.

A significantly larger amount of meat there. Specific policy prescriptions taking a broad view of the problem (addressing transportation, housing, paid sick days, difficulties faced by ex-offenders, etc), along with a touch of policy experimentation. To suggest the anti-poverty strategies of Obama and McCain (who, in all likelihood, would pursue a disastrous, Reaganesque approach to poverty) are Pepsi-and-Coke versions of each other is insultingly silly.

Many of Nader's ideas are good (instant run-off voting, single-payer health care, and others); some are not good (like a national initiative). But he doesn't do anyone any favors by perpetuating the myth that the two major parties are indistinguishable.

[ValkyrieVoice]

It seems to me that Barack Hussein Obama has no intention of backing the flag of the very country in which he intends to lead! At this time, I want to urge EVERYONE here to really think about things before they either go to the voting polls or not, because it starts here, folks. What's next? Air Force One?

Here's the link: Please, please click on it and see for yourself what's coming our way if we don't do something to stop it now.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp