Home    General Stuff    General Chat
#1

Who Are You Voting For In The Elections

Archive: 80 posts

So simple enough who are you voting for ?

im in New Zealand so im vote doesn't matter but i don't care i have my views

Me personally i would love it if Barack Obama won this ! you can't trust Mccain if you ask me

although i don't like all this talk from them kkk/Nazi people saying there going to assassinate him now let us say Barack Obama was white he would of already had this election won What is WRONG with the racist people in America		2008-10-30 21:25:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

Fixed atrocious spelling error and added more options. 2008-10-30 21:35:00

Author:
Unknown User

Fixed atrocious spelling error and added more options.

lol what would i do without you mate thanks =)

and you haven't voted ??

EDIT: im going blind!		2008-10-30 21:39:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

I like how this poll assumes that everyone else here is over 18 and lives in the US xD
Unless you mean if we could 		2008-10-30 21:45:00

Author:
Forsaken
Posts: 950

Fixed. That was intended, but I guess I have to write it out. 2008-10-30 21:52:00

Author:
Unknown User

I would vote for McCain because I cannot stand Obama.

But that's not much help.

Ron Paul isn't on the ballot. =		2008-10-30 21:54:00

Author:
LightGrenades
Posts: 218

I like how this poll assumes that everyone else here is over 18 and lives in the US xD
Unless you mean if we could

im in New Zealand not the us but i still like to know what people think

=)

just pick and shhh lol

@ marino this should just be your thread.......		2008-10-30 21:55:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

MY thread? No one owns threads, this is a public forum.

I'm just trying to make it the best thread it can possibly be. 		2008-10-30 21:57:00

Author:
Unknown User

I would vote for McCain because I cannot stand Obama.

But that's not much help.

Ron Paul isn't on the ballot. =

Seriously, Ron Paul would have been my choice as well. On the spectrum of liberal v. conservative, Ron Paul would be all the way to the right and Barack Obama would sit just his opposite.

Obama wishes to redistribute wealth which boils down to socialist-type behavior. He also wants to raise taxes in the highest tax bracket when they already pay the majority of taxes to begin with. Plus, he has close to zero experience.

By the way, both "Barack" and "Obama" are showing as misspellings. Wonder if that will change if he wins come November 4...		2008-10-30 21:59:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

I'd vote for Obama, I think he is a pretty cool guy and isn't afraid of anything.

But serious:
I wish the US gets their first black president, it would be an awesome way of development.		2008-10-30 21:59:00

Author:
Unknown User

By the way, both "Barack" and "Obama" are showing as misspellings. Wonder if that will change if he wins come November 4...

if he loses over something like that then i would kill myself		2008-10-30 22:04:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

I really hope he doesn't get assassinated. If that happened, I would lose the little hope for humanity that I have left.

I don't think he will though, but a lot of people do. 		2008-10-30 22:04:00

Author:
Unknown User

I would vote obama but i cant vote2008-10-30 22:05:00

Author:
Snrm
Posts: 6419

if he does then i would go on a murders rampage killing kkk2008-10-30 22:06:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

if he does then i would go on a murders rampage killing kkk

Because that wouldn't be hypocritical or anything. 		2008-10-30 22:07:00

Author:
Unknown User

Did you just call me kkk ??

because saying hypocritical is the same as saying kill kkk's even though i am one.....

or have i read that wrong??		2008-10-30 22:11:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

I'm not 18, but we had a mock election in school and I voted Obama.
I would've voted Nader though. He wasn't on the school ballot. >_>
Nader just keeps on running. I like his perseverance. grr		2008-10-30 22:14:00

Author:
scratchbachstan
Posts: 65

lol =) good guy

but yea i so WANT obama then the barackoroll will be even more FAMOUS		2008-10-30 22:19:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

Did you just call me kkk ??

because saying hypocritical is the same as saying kill kkk's even though i am one.....

or have i read that wrong??

Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes. Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in many contexts.

What I meant is that you are against kkk because they kill people; when you want to kill them. An eye an eye makes the whole world go blind. Get it? 		2008-10-30 22:19:00

Author:
Unknown User

Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes. Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in many contexts.

What I meant is that you are against kkk because they kill people; when you want to kill them. An eye an eye makes the whole world go blind. Get it?

...
You got that off Wikipedia, didn't you? xD


Though most people are hypocrites, people have to follow the advice they are given.		2008-10-30 22:25:00

Author:
Forsaken
Posts: 950

Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes. Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in many contexts.

What I meant is that you are against kkk because they kill people; when you want to kill them. An eye an eye makes the whole world go blind. Get it?

yea i get what you mean but no i don't hate them for killing people it's the way they treat people likes jews/blacks		2008-10-30 22:25:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

...
You got that off Wikipedia, didn't you? xD


Of course.

And yeah, pretty much everyone is hypocritical sometimes. I'm hypocritical for calling others hypocritical when I'm hypocritical. :3		2008-10-30 22:29:00

Author:
Unknown User

Obama, because he's the first president I've seen since Reagan(videos, I'm not that old) who seems sincere. I can trust him one hundred percent. That's rare, in my opinion. He's smart, he addresses the issues, and while I don't agree with all of his policies, I honestly believe our country would be best off in his hands.2008-10-30 22:37:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

Ah, CC i understand that 100%2008-10-30 22:51:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

You all should know who I'm voting for...


http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/41/Mudkip08.jpg


....


In all seriousness, I don't trust any politician enough to vote.		2008-10-30 23:57:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

i would vote for obama if i could but honestly i dont think anyone of them could make much of a difference. With the way the world is today (world food crisis, america in huge debt etc.) it will be extremely hard for anyone.

what i hate though is all the rerdnecks claiming obama is a terrorist and planning to assasinate him and all that. it is disgusting how close minded people are. recently scientists discovered that we are all descendants of africans. several hundred thousand years ago the rest of the world immigrated from africa to other parts. i just learnt that an hour ago in school 		2008-10-31 00:08:00

Author:
muttjones
Posts: 843

i would vote for obama if i could but honestly i dont think anyone of them could make much of a difference. With the way the world is today (world food crisis, america in huge debt etc.) it will be extremely hard for anyone.

what i hate though is all the rerdnecks claiming obama is a terrorist and planning to assasinate him and all that. it is disgusting how close minded people are. recently scientists discovered that we are all descendants of africans. several hundred thousand years ago the rest of the world immigrated from africa to other parts. i just learnt that an hour ago in school
Lol, I go to school with those rednecks. 		2008-10-31 00:16:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

LOL, mutt, where did you think we all came from? We had to migrate from somewhere. 2008-10-31 00:17:00

Author:
Unknown User

Obama, because he's the first president I've seen since Reagan(videos, I'm not that old) who seems sincere. I can trust him one hundred percent. That's rare, in my opinion. He's smart, he addresses the issues, and while I don't agree with all of his policies, I honestly believe our country would be best off in his hands.

I would say the exact opposite. Why? He's smooth talking. That's the only reason he's currently on the ballot. He really doesn't actually say anything specifically. He simply generalizes, uses nonspecifics, and essentially avoids issue even when asked directly. Or at best, he'll continually rehash the same select examples and never get anywhere beside that.

Plus, although he says he's a Christian, he has consistently supported things very against it. He's stated that he believes abortion is wrong...yet voted for it without fail. I do not get how he thinks he's going to get away with "balancing" his faith and the issues. Plus, he sat under the same pastor for years and years, who holds positions that are NOT in the Bible, and he's never been affected by any of that? Give me a break.

Given a birthday a year earlier, I'd be voting for McCain. He's not incredibly great, but he's decent enough. If he's on a position, he seems to be forthright on saying he is, and has argued that point. Plus, with military experience that he has, he'll be very deliberate on how he uses it. Now, I can't say I support everything he's got, because he still is pretty much a "big government" supporter. But he's not socialist. And he might not fix enough as needs be, but he'll at least fix some stuff that's very broken. And I don't think he'll break anything further. Obama may be for "change". Just the completely wrong type of it.

Obama is currently where he is due to smooth talk and because he's black. And the second is completely irrelevant. If he loses, I just KNOW Democrats are going to blame it on racism. But you know what? It doesn't matter whether he's black, white, red or purple, what matters is what he believes, and how he's going to make good on that. Which I absolutely do not see in Obama.

Also, I have come to the conclusion that in order to cast their vote, each voter must answer a handful of simple questions on the issues each candidate supports, to prove they know what they're doing and why, not just because. Because an ignorant opinion is not valid.		2008-10-31 00:19:00

Author:
Mark D. Stroyer
Posts: 632

i cnt vote but id vote mcain if i could...2008-10-31 02:54:00

Author:
ea9492
Posts: 444

Also, I have come to the conclusion that in order to cast their vote, each voter must answer a handful of simple questions on the issues each candidate supports, to prove they know what they're doing and why, not just because. Because an ignorant opinion is not valid.
That will surely lead to corruption. It's not like they are voting directly for the president either. They are voting for a representative in the electoral college. 		2008-10-31 03:37:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

I've wondered... can you vote un-biassed-ly? (is that even a word?)
Or would it have to be random for it not to be biassed?

I'm confused.		2008-10-31 03:41:00

Author:
Sage
Posts: 2068

I've wondered... can you vote un-biassed-ly? (is that even a word?)
Or would it have to be random for it not to be biassed?

I'm confused.
Your vote is based on your opinion, therefore it is subject to bias. If you don't want to be biased, why have an opinion at all?		2008-10-31 03:51:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

That was so deep I think i'm going to drown.2008-10-31 03:51:00

Author:
Sage
Posts: 2068

That was so deep I think i'm going to drown.
Well, I'm not one to explain things word for word. :/		2008-10-31 04:09:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

Also, I have come to the conclusion that in order to cast their vote, each voter must answer a handful of simple questions on the issues each candidate supports, to prove they know what they're doing and why, not just because. Because an ignorant opinion is not valid.

Most people wouldn't be able to answer those questions. I know there are probably a good deal of people here that are not able to listen to The Howard Stern Show, but they did a great bit a month or so ago where they sent a guy to Harlem to ask people who they were voting for. As they expected, most everyone said they were going to vote for Obama. Fine.

Then they asked follow-up questions that basically were founded on McCain's rhetoric. In other words, the people said they'd vote for Obama and they - with only the slightest assistance - cited McCain's own ideals as their reason for voting for Obama.

Did that make sense? No? Here's the clip itself.

YouTube - Harlem voters

Long story short, this will be the reason Obama wins the election: "WOW" factor.		2008-10-31 04:55:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

I won't argue my position, Mark, because, like religious opinion, political opinion is rarely ever changed by argument. I don't hate or otherwise dislike those who disagree with me, mainly because I live my life by a simple philosophy: If you took the time to look at the facts, and derive your own opinion from those facts, then I respect your opinion and consider it valid.


Also, I have come to the conclusion that in order to cast their vote, each voter must answer a handful of simple questions on the issues each candidate supports, to prove they know what they're doing and why, not just because. Because an ignorant opinion is not valid.

Did my opinion trigger this thought? I hope I didn't come off as ignorant.		2008-10-31 05:17:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

Go obama =) let LPBC in the elections!!2008-10-31 07:00:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

I want Barack Obama to win because he is a much smarter person and will be a better pres. But I cant vote Both are gonnie die within a few months if they win McCain = old age Obama = racists ALSO to someones comment on the first page, "I hate all the racists people in america" Racism is found everywhere ; the U.S. wasn't the first, wont be the last, and isn't the worst.



Did my opinion trigger this thought? I hope I didn't come off as ignorant.

I doubt it. He probably means for all the retarded red necks who have chosen McCain based on the fact that hes a white christian.		2008-10-31 11:47:00

Author:
Unknown User

Did my opinion trigger this thought? I hope I didn't come off as ignorant.

I'm sure this wasn't the case. See my last post concerning The Howard Stern Show? Check out the link; it's more likely he's referencing people like that as they are blatantly ignorant of the issues.		2008-10-31 12:10:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

i dont want obama to win cause on the us shows they all vote for him for the wrong reason, because he black and he wins he will be the first black president, that great but is not a good reason to vote him. i dont care who win allong as they dont become currup, another thing who going to assainate obama2008-10-31 12:23:00

Author:
panzer3000
Posts: 362

I wanna know whats so wrong with socialism? Why can't you redistribute some of the wealth but still have an enterptise culture. Americans see things as being too black & white (if you pardon the pun)

Personally I think it should be the responsibilityof the rich to help the disadvantaged help themselves to improve rather than just get richer at everyone elses expense.

But I guess I'm just an old hippy.		2008-10-31 12:48:00

Author:
Piratepete
Posts: 110

I wanna know whats so wrong with socialism? Why can't you redistribute some of the wealth but still have an enterptise culture. Americans see things as being too black & white (if you pardon the pun)

Personally I think it should be the responsibilityof the rich to help the disadvantaged help themselves to improve rather than just get richer at everyone elses expense.

But I guess I'm just an old hippy.

Redistribution of wealth is not what this country needs even in the slightest. The problem I have with socialism is that's it's not capitalism, plain and simple. I don't believe in rewarding some people for not putting in those extra hours to get ahead and I surely don't like the idea of punishing people that worked hard to get to the top.

Who do you think pays the majority of taxes in this country? The people that are in the "richest" tax brackets (about 1% of the population) are responsible for roughly 90% of the income taxes by themselves, leaving another 10% to be divided amongst the rest of the taxpayers. 40% of working Americans don't even end up paying an income tax; it's all returned to them after doing their taxes from the previous year as they qualify for full refunds. That being said, non-working Americans - under Obama's plan - will also receive money back this next tax season. They'll receive money back that they simply did not earn in the first place. I have no problem supporting those that cannot work, but do they deserve even more entitlements because of it? Absolutely not.

The "richest" tax bracket already pays in 50% of their earnings so we should tax them more? 50%. Instead, why not cut these people a little slack so they can put more money directly into the economy? That's exactly what McCain wants to do and I'm all for it. He's also offering a double-exemption for every child in America ($5,000 instead of $2,500) so that will help out struggling families a good deal. In my opinion, Obama's plan will directly contribute to even more animosity among the classes. He'll alienate the rich by taxing them 50+% and wind up alienating the middle-class and lower-classes by handing out money to non-working Americans. What's capitalist about that?

Now, I firmly believe that both candidates will raise taxes. The difference is Obama is saying that he wants to do it now, when our country is very unstable. McCain wants to keep taxes low for the time being and - my thoughts, not his - will raise taxes in about two years when we start to emerge from this recession.

The truth about all of this is most Americans haven't done their research and don't understand how any part of government works. Whether it's a vote for McCain or a vote for Obama, a good number of those voters don't know what they're doing at the polls. As Cartman said, the responsible voters are the ones that put time into their decisions and make an attempt to understand the policies of both candidates and - after all of that - make an educated decision. It really is just too bad that a good number of voters don't do that.

To sum it all up, here's how I see things:

A vote for McCain keeps taxes low across the board and also includes a tax cut for the "richest" brackets. Also, he will include a double-exemption for every child this next tax season. His hope is that by cutting taxes for the "richest" brackets that they - who we assume know how to wisely spend money as they have a good amount of it - will, in turn, pump more of their money back into the economy.

A vote for Obama will cut taxes taxes across the middle and lower-classes where they only pay about 10% of the total income tax to begin with. He plans to raise taxes for the "richest" brackets which, in turn, will mean they're actually paying more than 50% of their annual earnings into the government. He'll also be giving money to non-working Americans in hopes that they will find a way to stimulate the economy along with the lower and middle-classes who also received tax cuts.		2008-10-31 13:08:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

Can't vote, but am voting for Obama in mock school elections today >_>.2008-10-31 13:15:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

i vote obama, because he's much better then McCain. if McCain is elected, hell probably be so excited he'll have a heart attack when he enters office leaving Barrack Obama as president 2008-10-31 13:17:00

Author:
Unknown User

i vote obama, because he's much better then McCain. if McCain is elected, hell probably be so excited he'll have a heart attack when he enters office leaving Barrack Obama as president

The problem with that philosophy is that if McCain wins but dies in office, we wouldn't give it to Obama- it would be Palin who is president. 		2008-10-31 13:19:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

BUT, if both obama and palin die in office, then doesnt it have to go to Obama? or will it go to Joe Biden?2008-10-31 13:21:00

Author:
Unknown User

BUT, if both obama and palin die in office, then doesnt it have to go to Obama? or will it go to Joe Biden?

I assume that by if both Obama and Palin die, you mean McCain and Palin?

An, under the current ystem, we would probably need another election or something, and have a temporary president or something <_<.		2008-10-31 13:23:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

sry yes i did mean mccain and palin. stupid typos2008-10-31 13:25:00

Author:
Unknown User

i vote obama, because he's much better then McCain. if McCain is elected, hell probably be so excited he'll have a heart attack when he enters office leaving Barrack Obama as president

No it doesn't work like that mate, it doesn't switch to the opponent if he dies, the VP would become president.

That would leave gun-totting, creationist lovin, beehive wearing, skido driving, hockey mom and right wing fascist Palin as President.

*shudders*		2008-10-31 13:29:00

Author:
Piratepete
Posts: 110

No it doesn't work like that mate, it doesn't switch to the opponent if he dies, the VP would become president.

That would leave gun-totting, creationist lovin, beehive wearing, skido driving, hockey mom and right wing fascist Palin as President.

*shudders*

You have absolutely no idea how many Americans and - obviously - American women in general identify with Gov. Palin. Just saying...

If - God forbid in any case - something were to happen to both the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. She's every bit as far to the left - along with Sen. Obama - as Gov. Palin is to the right.		2008-10-31 13:36:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

Lol this is why i dont like politics, too much of everyone acting crazy over 2 ppl running for President sheesh lol2008-10-31 13:38:00

Author:
Unknown User

You have absolutely no idea how many Americans and - obviously - American women in general identify with Gov. Palin. Just saying...

If - God forbid in any case - something were to happen to both the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. She's every bit as far to the left - along with Sen. Obama - as Gov. Palin is to the right.

The mere fact that Palin is "just like us" and is "one of the girls" doesn't qualify her to be president.

And it's been forty or so years since the amendment to the constitution to get rid of that crazy line of succession to the presidency, and now the line ends with vice president and now we would just have a new election- or something like that. Cause all those positions weren't elected and we can't have a president who wasn't elected.		2008-10-31 13:40:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

The mere fact that Palin is "just like us" and is "one of the girls" doesn't qualify her to be president.

And it's been forty or so years since the amendment to the constitution to get rid of that crazy line of succession to the presidency, and now the line ends with vice president and now we would just have a new election- or something like that. Cause all those positions weren't elected and we can't have a president who wasn't elected.

No one said it qualified her for the Presidency; I'm merely saying that - like a lot people identify with one-term Sen. Obama - a lot of Americans believe Gov. Palin represents their values. Call them crazy, but America is all about diversity.

As for Presidential Succession:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1947

1 Vice President and President of the Senate
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives
3 President pro tempore of the Senate
4 Secretary of State
5 Secretary of the Treasury
6 Secretary of Defense
7 Attorney General
8 Secretary of the Interior
9 Secretary of Agriculture
? Secretary of Commerce
? Secretary of Labor
10 Secretary of Health and Human Services
11 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
12 Secretary of Transportation
13 Secretary of Energy
14 Secretary of Education
15 Secretary of Veterans Affairs
16 Secretary of Homeland Security		2008-10-31 13:53:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

No one said it qualified her for the Presidency; I'm merely saying that - like a lot people identify with one-term Sen. Obama - a lot of Americans believe Gov. Palin represents their values. Call them crazy, but America is all about diversity.

As for Presidential Succession:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1947

1 Vice President and President of the Senate
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives
3 President pro tempore of the Senate
4 Secretary of State
5 Secretary of the Treasury
6 Secretary of Defense
7 Attorney General
8 Secretary of the Interior
9 Secretary of Agriculture
? Secretary of Commerce
? Secretary of Labor
10 Secretary of Health and Human Services
11 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
12 Secretary of Transportation
13 Secretary of Energy
14 Secretary of Education
15 Secretary of Veterans Affairs
16 Secretary of Homeland Security


The problem is that the 25th admendment, from 1967, changed that. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am25)		2008-10-31 13:57:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/6249/mainphpg2viewcorewl3.jpg2008-10-31 14:01:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

Yet the line of succession remains intact. Also, since approval is needed it's likely the majority Congress could block any nomination given by the vice president. See Pres. Nixon for a good example of how this went down.

EDIT: Now, with a great understanding of Watergate, it seems my Nixon comment isn't valid here. I was wrong in the case that the new president (former vice president) has a chance to appoint a vice president. In any case, we haven't had a chance to see exactly how this amendment would work in reality. It's good on paper, but something tells me there might be some blocking of vice presidential nominations.		2008-10-31 14:06:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

vote for mccain. america is not ready for obama, believe me.2008-10-31 14:12:00

Author:
Sackboy
Posts: 164

vote for mccain. america is not ready for obama, believe me.

Please, explain your theory...		2008-10-31 14:18:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

vote for mccain. america is not ready for obama, believe me.

NEVER he is not trust worthy		2008-10-31 15:16:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

I can't vote because I'm 14 and live in the UK.

BUT.

I would go for Barack Obama. I like him.		2008-10-31 17:57:00

Author:
alexbull_uk
Posts: 1287

I can't vote because I'm 14 and live in the UK.

BUT.

I would go for Barack Obama. I like him.

But where's the substance for all of this support thrown Obama's way. Cartman - and I could be wrong here - is the only person that mentioned valid points. The fact that he's personable shouldn't secure him the presidency.

I like Dennis Rodman, but he shouldn't be president. 		2008-10-31 18:03:00

Author:
supersickie
Posts: 1366

Oh, you mean the US elections.2008-10-31 18:03:00

Author:
FlowersInHisHair
Posts: 126

I wanna know whats so wrong with socialism? Why can't you redistribute some of the wealth but still have an enterptise culture. Americans see things as being too black & white (if you pardon the pun)

Personally I think it should be the responsibilityof the rich to help the disadvantaged help themselves to improve rather than just get richer at everyone elses expense.

But I guess I'm just an old hippy.

Pete, can i answer this one for you? I hate discussing politics on a non-political board, but I feel this one NEEDS to be answered...

The following is an email that's been hitting the rounds (and I was actually in a seminar with a former Russian who became a naturalized American , who gave us a true to life example of why socialism turns into communism and both are horrible systems)

Now the first I don't know if it's true or not (this is the email making the rounds

=============
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application (ask the waiter) "
==========

So you gave $10 to the homeless guy, and in the process took money from teh waiter.. what guarantees do you have that the $10 will be put to "economic use"?

Now this example I know is true, because I was at this seminar... And it shows how Socialism leads to communism... (it's kind of long and confusing... but if you follow it, you see how EVERYONE gets hurt by it).

==========
At the seminar, the Russian had three kids (again, this was a LONG time ago when I was in High-School), each take out their wallets and remove all the money. One kid had a couple of dollars.. ($2), one had about $6, and one had $20.

They all then gave the money to the Russian (acting as the Govt.), and he put it together to get a total of $28 dollars... he then gave $5 back to each kid. So the one kid gained $3, one lost $1 and one lost $15.

The govt. then kept the left over.. ($13)... so the "taxpayers" each got $5 for their efforts, the govt. got $13... So the kid who gained $3 is now "as" wealthy as the one that lost $15? So why would the third individual try to get the $20 to start with... he only needs to earn $2 to get his $3 from the govt...

So instead of earning $20, he decides to only earn $2 "hey it worked for Kid #1!)... Kid #1 continues as is, gets his $2, and kid #2 doesn't realize he's been hurt yet, as he only lost $1...

So now you've got Kid #1 = $2, Kid $2 = 6, Kid #3 = $2...

Govt. comes in and collects all the money.. and looks to get it's $13 (remember that is what it got the first time... whoops.. there isn't $13 to take in.. and we have expenses.. so it takes the $9... govt decides it has to keep _something_ and cut back on some services, so it keeps $3... )

Now it has $6 to give back.. and EVERYONE only gets $2 back.. now Kid #2 realizes he LOST more than the other two guys... so why should he try to earn more than $2 next time around?

Eventually it gets to the status where, you're going to give EVERYTHING to the govt, and you're not going to get any money back, just the "services" that it eventually has to contineu to supply.

So instead of #3 getting his $20, and then say giving $5 to the govt... and say $5 to charity (which could go to #1), adn keep $10.. EVERYONE loses out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Second post for a reason: I 'm not saying McCain is a great choice either (I'm a conservative "Republican" (more Conservative than Republican) and McCain has a few ideas that I'm definitely against as well....). I'm still actually undecided if I"m voting for McCain or putting my vote into a "wasted" third party candidate this year.		2008-10-31 18:33:00

Author:
DaSaintFan
Posts: 136

@daSaintFan

I TOTALLY disagree... wel almost totally. I'm talking about the last one with the three kids. You do see it too black and white. As I live in Holland which is a pretty democratic country I have never met anyone who sees it so black and white and says he doesn't. The point you make about the three kids shows this. You say that all those kids get exactely the same amount of money in the end, and you are right that the richest will stop working hard, but that is only in a totally sociallistic system of government. When you have a balanced combination socialism and kapitalism then the hard working kid will stil have more money but the poor will also be able to live a decent life and maybe buy themselves education so they can get a good job in the end themselves.

I btw would vote for Barack Obama (like most dutch people) because I just don't trust Mccain, in the same way as I don't trust Bush. I think what America needs is change and it show now more then ever with the economic crisis and the war in Iraq. Bush said the war would be quick and easy and it turned out to cost billions of dollars and many lives and I'm not just talking about deaths but also about traumas (which also destroys lives). Bush has also made a HUGE debt for America and I think this would continue with Mccain.

btw, I'm 15 years old and live in Holland so I'm not allowed to vote.		2008-10-31 20:32:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

Matthis, that's why i put the note on there about that story coming from a Russian national, as he was giving us a black/white (no shades of gray) example (not to mention I may have parts of it wrong.. as I had attended the function back when I was in high-school.. and when dinosaurs roamed the earth *hehe*)...

But the general idea is that in a pure socialist economy, there is no reason to try to be the guy that makes the larger sum of money, because you get hurt more than the guy that is just doing enough to get by, so why try to do more? And if people don't try to do more, then you stifle growth even worse than it is now.

The general idea is that "people" are much better able to supply to the needy (via charities and self-imposed giving) rather than forcing someone to give to the needy via govt. mandates. That's why Senator Obama's economic policies are the worst of the two options ... (again, McCain's ideas aren't that much better this time around.. "buying up mortgages and having people pay the govt?&apos		2008-10-31 20:44:00

Author:
DaSaintFan
Posts: 136

But the general idea is that in a pure socialist economy, there is no reason to try to be the guy that makes the larger sum of money, because you get hurt more than the guy that is just doing enough to get by, so why try to do more? And if people don't try to do more, then you stifle growth even worse than it is now.

The general idea is that "people" are much better able to supply to the needy (via charities and self-imposed giving) rather than forcing someone to give to the needy via govt. mandates.

I definitely agree that a pure socialist economy is wrong and wouldn't help any country. However, I disafree that people are much better able to give to charity themselves.

1. I do not think that the wealthy would give enough money to charity.
2. I think that having mandates is good because it would be much more organised than charity. People would know how much they would get every month and it would be shared equally among all the people. (with people I mean the lower class)		2008-10-31 21:36:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

I definitely agree that a pure socialist economy is wrong and wouldn't help any country. However, I disafree that people are much better able to give to charity themselves.

1. I do not think that the wealthy would give enough money to charity.

I'd have to find the stats, Mathis.. but its' been researched many times that when people are more successful and have more money, they're typically MORE willing to give larger amounts to charity when no one mandates it. It's sort of a "I have more, I"m willing to share more".

Where as when people are "forced" to give a certain amount to a cause, even if that amount was less than what they normally would have given, they then don't give the additional amount.

say you had $100, and you freely gave $15 to whatever you consider a worthy cause. (we'll just say the Salvation Army for instance)..

if you were forced to give them say $5 of those dollars to some similar purpose, you're much less likely to give any money (even the $10 differential) to a second charity (again, the Salv. Army).

When govt. took less money in taxes (again for redistribution purposes, since that's the debate), people gave more money of their own free will to groups that they -believed- were going to use the money wisely. (I refuse to believe that the U.S. govt will ever wisely use my money for any purpose... (see such things such as the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and other stupid items.).. they might get lucky and use it correctly, but I'd wager more often than not, the infamous "Pork projects" get my money.		2008-10-31 22:18:00

Author:
DaSaintFan
Posts: 136

i think its funny how people r lik im voting for obama/mcCain cuz i lik him... if u r gonna say tht then just say who ur voting for!! no1 said u had to give a reason... when u say tht it just makes u sound lik u dont no wut ur talking bout....2008-10-31 22:20:00

Author:
ea9492
Posts: 444

I'd have to find the stats, Mathis.. but its' been researched many times that when people are more successful and have more money, they're typically MORE willing to give larger amounts to charity when no one mandates it. It's sort of a "I have more, I"m willing to share more".

Where as when people are "forced" to give a certain amount to a cause, even if that amount was less than what they normally would have given, they then don't give the additional amount.

say you had $100, and you freely gave $15 to whatever you consider a worthy cause. (we'll just say the Salvation Army for instance)..

if you were forced to give them say $5 of those dollars to some similar purpose, you're much less likely to give any money (even the $10 differential) to a second charity (again, the Salv. Army).

When govt. took less money in taxes (again for redistribution purposes, since that's the debate), people gave more money of their own free will to groups that they -believed- were going to use the money wisely. (I refuse to believe that the U.S. govt will ever wisely use my money for any purpose... (see such things such as the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and other stupid items.).. they might get lucky and use it correctly, but I'd wager more often than not, the infamous "Pork projects" get my money.

I never thought about it like that and it sounds very plausible. Thank you for that		2008-10-31 22:30:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

i think its funny how people r lik im voting for obama/mcCain cuz i lik him... if u r gonna say tht then just say who ur voting for!! no1 said u had to give a reason... when u say tht it just makes u sound lik u dont no wut ur talking bout....

it's good to always give a reason though =P

and who doesn't like the barackoroll		2008-11-01 02:59:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

I've changed my mind. I'd offer my vote for McCain, seeing as virtually no one outside the US wants him to win, so he must be really good for the USA! =D

Now THAT is killer logic.		2008-11-01 03:05:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

obama >.> idk why tho2008-11-01 03:55:00

Author:
Unknown User

i know why because he's legend2008-11-01 06:02:00

Author:
Thee-Flash
Posts: 3154

my middle school had an election and from all the kids that voted in my school Barack Obama won2008-11-01 06:32:00

Author:
Snrm
Posts: 6419

We had an election at my school... I wrote in Ron Paul. 2008-11-01 07:52:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

Hmmmm to be honest personally I think what Obama has done has got peple dreaming against ok you may not agree with his policies and many other things but personally his speaking abilities are very like martin luther . He does have that aura about him and even though I live in UK I've been following the election close and I have to say most of the stuff Obama says does seem pretty highly respected among american people . But personally for me the Mcain campaign has just been too negative and attacking Obama rather than showing himself in a lighter way to the american people. BUt mainly for me is the Palin factor like it or not she could be the president. Yes she may be a normal person, yes she may be a beloved mom but a president she is not. And the thought of her even running possibly the strongest nation of them all is scary. For a woman so connected to normal people she doesnt even read a newspaper . And by the looks of it econmy wise she will fail america. FOreign policy wise she will fail america. SO if I was in America I would vote Obama . I wish he comes to UK if he doesn't win in US and take over Gordy browns position lol.2008-11-01 12:20:00

Author:
Kyashu
Posts: 447

my middle school had an election and from all the kids that voted in my school Barack Obama won

shsh obama won at our school and i really wasnt suprised.... but all tht matters is wut happens on elcetcion day!!		2008-11-01 12:56:00

Author:
ea9492
Posts: 444

But personally for me the Mcain campaign has just been too negative and attacking Obama rather than showing himself in a lighter way to the american people.




I agree! McCain is just bashing Obama but isn't explaining what he wants for the future of america.		2008-11-01 13:52:00

Author:
MatthijsNL
Posts: 164

I agree! McCain is just bashing Obama but isn't explaining what he wants for the future of america.

Why, it's obvious what he wants for America. He wants "True" Americans who believe in "God" to work hard, because apparrently Christian Republicans are the only true Americans. >_> The Constitutional Congress must be spinning in their graves, no?		2008-11-01 13:58:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.