Who are you voting for? - Page 6 - VeggieBoards
View Poll Results: Who are you voting for?
Barack Obama 0 0%
John McCain 0 0%
Bob Barr 0 0%
Ralph Nader 0 0%
Undecided 0 0%
Not Voting 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#151 Old 10-22-2008, 05:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Veggily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,868
+2

Generalizing a bit, seems like the dems mumble a bit, then go ahead and vote for more funding, like they just give up or something. I doubt the money they okayed was used exclusively for troop protection.

"Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you, 'There is no "I" in team.' What you should tell them is, 'Maybe not. But there is an "I" in independence, individuality and integrity." Â George Carlin
Veggily is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#152 Old 10-22-2008, 05:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hollywoodveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by numinant View Post

it IS true. the war wouldn't have been able to continue of not for democrat complicity. the bush presidency wouldn't have been allowed to continue if not for democrat complicity!



and no, what i said was "doesn't mccain support civil unions?"



it was a question, and the answer isn't 'no' but 'possibly'



Since this is a thread about the candidates I will adress Obama's stance on the war, he makes it very clear here it is:



"Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences.” In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations."



http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/



As for Civil Unions it is a major difference between the two candidates, I think it's an important issue for every voter to be aware of. Here is McCain's stance:



Quote:

"What is your position on civil unions between same sex partners?"



While, as a federalist, I recognize the right of the states to regulate the institution of marriage and to pass civil union laws, I strongly believe in the current law that declares that no other state should be legally bound to recognize same sex marriages or unions that might be legal in other places. But while the citizens of each state should decide this question, I personally oppose civil unions that for all intents and purposes confer the same status as traditional marriage.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2...s/john-mccain/

hollywoodveg is offline  
#153 Old 10-22-2008, 05:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Eleven's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywoodveg View Post

In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations."





Doesn't really seem responsible to me especially now that his stance has changed to, according to the most recent debate, a reduction of troops in Iraq after 16 months with an associated increase in troops in Afghanistan.
Eleven is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#154 Old 10-22-2008, 05:59 PM
Veggie Regular
 
hollywoodveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleven View Post

Doesn't really seem responsible to me especially now that his stance has changed to, according to the most recent debate, a reduction of troops in Iraq after 16 months with an associated increase in troops in Afghanistan.



What do you think would be best and why?



How does this differ?
hollywoodveg is offline  
#155 Old 10-22-2008, 06:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Fromper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleven View Post

Doesn't really seem responsible to me especially now that his stance has changed to, according to the most recent debate, a reduction of troops in Iraq after 16 months with an associated increase in troops in Afghanistan.



What exactly do you think is different? In January, 2007, his suggestion for a phased withdrawal from Iraq was rejected, so it never happened. Now, he's saying he'll begin the same phased withdrawal as soon as he gets into office, and it'll take 16 months to complete. There's a minor revision of the timeline there, but the basic concept is exactly the same.



As for Afghanistan, we went there to go after Al Qaida and the government that supported them, right after 9/11. Obama didn't disagree with that one the way he did with Iraq. We haven't finished that job yet, and it's going badly, because Bush neglected it in favor of Iraq, so Obama wants to send more troops there. However, the amount of troops he wants to send isn't nearly as many as would be leaving Iraq, so a lot of our troops will be able to come home.



Personally, I'm anti-war in general, and I'm a bit impatient with both plans. But it's still a hell of a lot better than McCain's plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely AND send more troops to Afghanistan. Where does he think he's going to get those troops from? Our military is already stretched too thin, and he's already stated that he's opposed to a draft.



--Fromper

Fromper is offline  
#156 Old 10-22-2008, 06:16 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Eleven's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,908
Minor revision?



Obama has no announced plan to end the war at this time.



He used to speak of ending the war. Now he suggests a reduction in troops will be sufficient coupled with an increase in the body bag order for shipment to Afghanistan.
Eleven is offline  
#157 Old 10-22-2008, 06:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Eleven's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywoodveg View Post

What do you think would be best and why?



How does this differ?



I think he should do what he used to say he would do. Stop funding the war and bring the troops home.



Now.
Eleven is offline  
#158 Old 10-22-2008, 06:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
JLRodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Hmm, that's strange. I live in a country clearly more to the left than the US, and yet our Green Party certainly doesn't oppose zoos or believe in veg*nism.



I think the US green party (granted I was shocked when I found that out), is trying to be as extreme as possible - just to make the news or just to make itself not be called "the democrat party with an environmental focus". Although probably 40% of the party (based on the convention's meal boxes) were vegetarian, many striving to do so. So I'm not sure which came first. Just by having more vegetarian animal-rights people in a grassroots party probably caused it more than anything.



Although someone did say that the animals used for livestock created more methane gas than not -- so it's more environmentally friendly.
JLRodgers is offline  
#159 Old 10-22-2008, 06:47 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by numinant View Post

what i said is either common knowledge, or easily supported with a simple google search. and i was pretty direct. it wasn't babble. like i said, if you want to refute what i've said, be my guest.



"i'm holding obama supporters personally responsible for the wars, diminished civil liberties, corporate welfarism, etc."



The only thing a search provides is sound bite smack on blogs, where the interpretation varies from one person to the next. It's all babble. For productive discourse ideally a poster will pick a talking point and go from there.
gaya is offline  
#160 Old 10-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Beginner
 
numinant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

"i'm holding obama supporters personally responsible for the wars, diminished civil liberties, corporate welfarism, etc."



The only thing a search provides is sound bite smack on blogs, where the interpretation varies from one person to the next. It's all babble. For productive discourse ideally a poster will pick a talking point and go from there.



jesus.



-consistently voted to fund wars

-voted for (reauthorized) the patriot act

-voted for 700 billion wall street bailout package



google those and i'm sure you won't have a problem finding numerous legitimate sources. although, as i said, they should be common knowledge. perhaps 'should be' is the operative term.
numinant is offline  
#161 Old 10-23-2008, 12:20 AM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlaybackGuru View Post

Did you read the original link I posted? I think it is clearly laid out.



The Huffington Post? I guess at least that's a step above the DailyKos, albeit a very small step.



So what was it your opinion piece claims McCain said?



Quote:
"I am all in favor of pay equity for women..."



Well, there you go. It's a matter of public record.



Of course, it wasn't like the Dems had any real interest in getting the bill onto the floor, and chose instead to set the whole thing up as a bit of early campaign drama.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/wa...gin&oref=login

Quote:
The political elements of the debate were unmistakable. Unable to reach an agreement with Republicans, Democrats did not convene the Senate until 5 p.m. so their two presidential candidates Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois could return from the campaign trail. Both spoke in favor of the legislation.



The campaign arm of Senate Democrats quickly issued news releases attacking Republicans up for re-election who opposed the procedural vote.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042301553.html



Quote:
The vote was delayed until 6 p.m. so the Democratic presidential contenders could make it back after a day of campaigning in Indiana. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) gave showcase speeches on the Senate floor.

...

"We understand people have to run for president," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. "But to have the schedule of the Senate completely revolve around the schedule of the Democratic presidential candidates strikes me as particularly ridiculous."



Among those who missed the procedural vote blocking the measure was the presumptive GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who was campaigning in Kentucky.

...

Some were clearly uncomfortable with the vote. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) said that workers should have more time to complain about unequal pay and that she could have supported the bill if there had been "an opportunity to write it a different way."



"I'm sure [the vote] will be spun as anti-equal pay," Hutchison said, but "there's definitely something I could have voted for."



IOW - the Democrats were more than willing to sacrifice this bill so they could use it against McCain and other GOP senators. And you're exactly the sort of patsy they counted on to pick up and run with it.
Red is offline  
#162 Old 10-23-2008, 06:07 AM
Veggie Regular
 
PlaybackGuru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

The Huffington Post? I guess at least that's a step above the DailyKos, albeit a very small step.



So what was it your opinion piece claims McCain said?







Well, there you go. It's a matter of public record.



Of course, it wasn't like the Dems had any real interest in getting the bill onto the floor, and chose instead to set the whole thing up as a bit of early campaign drama.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/wa...gin&oref=login





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042301553.html







IOW - the Democrats were more than willing to sacrifice this bill so they could use it against McCain and other GOP senators. And you're exactly the sort of patsy they counted on to pick up and run with it.



Last month, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) skipped the vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have made it easier for women and other workers to pursue pay discrimination claims. At the time, McCain explained his opposition to the bill by saying that instead of equal pay protection, women simply needed education and training. Asked about his opposition to the bill at a townhall today, McCain told a 14-year old girl that he didnt think protections for equal pay would do anything to help the rights of women:



McCain singled out a 14-year old woman who questioned why he opposes eliminating the statute of limitations on lawsuits over workplace discrimination, arguing it amounted to opposing equal rights for women.



If you eliminate the statutes of limitations, and you make it unending, you may be violating the rights of the individuals who are being sued, whether theyre a man or a woman, the senator responded. I dont think youre doing anything to help the rights of women, except maybe help trial lawyers and others in that profession.





the Fact Checker from your beloved Washington Post.



To be "all in favor" of something and then fail to vote or pass legislation that would help insure it is just asinine and something we can look forward to with John McCain as.....



a Senator!
PlaybackGuru is offline  
#163 Old 10-23-2008, 08:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by numinant View Post

jesus.



-consistently voted to fund wars

-voted for (reauthorized) the patriot act

-voted for 700 billion wall street bailout package



google those and i'm sure you won't have a problem finding numerous legitimate sources. although, as i said, they should be common knowledge. perhaps 'should be' is the operative term.



I'm well aware of Obama's and McCain's voting record. You blaming Obama's supporters for all past and future decisions you don't happen to agree with falls flat. With your line of reasoning we should certainly charge W supporters for the Iraq war. Ok, that's fine with me. Although from there you can also blame all those that didn't vote for Gore as well since they helped put Bush in the white house. Really, that's a whole lot of hot air. People vote for the best choice they perceive and nothing is black and white. To assume as much is irrational.
gaya is offline  
#164 Old 10-23-2008, 09:57 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromper View Post

What exactly do you think is different? In January, 2007, his suggestion for a phased withdrawal from Iraq was rejected, so it never happened. Now, he's saying he'll begin the same phased withdrawal as soon as he gets into office, and it'll take 16 months to complete. There's a minor revision of the timeline there, but the basic concept is exactly the same.



As for Afghanistan, we went there to go after Al Qaida and the government that supported them, right after 9/11. Obama didn't disagree with that one the way he did with Iraq. We haven't finished that job yet, and it's going badly, because Bush neglected it in favor of Iraq, so Obama wants to send more troops there. However, the amount of troops he wants to send isn't nearly as many as would be leaving Iraq, so a lot of our troops will be able to come home.



Personally, I'm anti-war in general, and I'm a bit impatient with both plans. But it's still a hell of a lot better than McCain's plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely AND send more troops to Afghanistan. Where does he think he's going to get those troops from? Our military is already stretched too thin, and he's already stated that he's opposed to a draft.



--Fromper


It's odd that people feel this way. We were told lies about Iraq, but the truth about Afghanistan? It doesn't make sense. I was against both occupations since the beginning. Let's say that he does decrease the troops in Iraq, but the violence increases, which is certainly possible. What does Obama plan to do if that happens?
rainforests1 is offline  
#165 Old 10-23-2008, 11:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
hollywoodveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,591
Well, we know what McCain thinks:



Quote:
"Cutting off a questioner who talked about the Bush administration's willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, McCain said "Make it a hundred." He then mentioned that U.S. troops had been in Germany for 60 years and in Korea for 50 years, and added, "That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."



http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-...0year_war.html
hollywoodveg is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off