[besson3c]

So, I'm noticing that there isn't an overwhelming anti-Obama sentiment in here, and that most seem at least lukewarm to him...

He talks about uniting the country and sparking a revolution and blah blah blah... Do you think he is? If you've voted Republican for the past, are you considering voting for him? Is he a guy you could vote for or be somewhat satisfied with as a president?

If so, perhaps he is worth voting for for that reason alone

[subego]

Libertarian, and yes.

If you don't consider this question to be a threadjack, could you see yourself somewhat satisfied with McCain?

[Dakar the Fourth]

I certainly could.
Edit:The latter question, not the former.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Libertarian, and yes.

If you don't consider this question to be a threadjack, could you see yourself somewhat satisfied with McCain?

Somewhat satisfied...

He seems cool on some issues, fairly moderate and palatable, but his war stances are rather over the top for me. He kind of pissed me off on Jon Stewart's show where Jon was asking him about why we should trust that the troop surge will work, or something like that, and he just insisted on talking over him about supporting our troops. I hate that kind of ****.

But yeah, I suppose he would still be an upgrade over what we have now

[BRussell]

After watching the Clintons for a few months now in this campaign, I'm almost at the point where I'd prefer McCain or Romney over them.

But I'm sure I'd be unhappy with their policies if either of them were president. The current Republican party just demands too much irrationality IMO, and although I think both McCain's and Romney's instincts are rational, I don't think they could overcome the current insanity of their party.

I won't vote for more of the Clintons, but I certainly won't vote for a Republican either, even if I like them better, as personalities, than the Clintons. Policy is more important, and any Republican, for me, is going to really and truly suck on policy.

[besson3c]

I'm also just reading on McCain's website how the road to health care reform doesn't involve a "hugely expensive government program". This is disingenuous. A public health care system is actually cheaper than a private system, according to the Wikipedia.

This is an example of the general sort of distrust I feel and disingenuous information that I feel comes from the McCain campaign based on my perceptions (which albeit are not very well researched). I'm kind of meh about him so far, but have decided not to learn too much more about him until he wins the primary. I'm not a registered Republican or Democrat, so there isn't a whole lot of incentive for me to do this research, and if I were to vote as an independent I'd probably vote on a Democratic candidate anyway.

I need to get off my ass and get my citizenship in line so that I can vote.

[Doofy]

Obama will rip the poopie out of all the freedoms you have left in your country.

He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.[75] He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home.

Obama voted in favor of the 2006 version of the Patriot Act.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A public health care system is actually cheaper than a private system, according to the Wikipedia.

I really, really, really hope that you're not just basing your argument on what it says on Wikipedia...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Obama will rip the poopie out of all the freedoms you have left in your country.

What is your source for the first point? What I've come up with as far as his stance on guns is as follows:

* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Here's some info about his Patriot Act stance:

The PATRIOT Act | U.S. Senator Barack Obama

I'm not big on the patriot act either, but this URL should provide some decent basis for debate here...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I really, really, really hope that you're not just basing your argument on what it says on Wikipedia...

No, you have to look at the whole picture. There are many possible reasons why the numbers in the WIkipedia turned out accordingly - some that support public health, some that probably don't make much of a dent in the argument.

However, to say that it is a given that public health would ultimately be more expensive once the dust has settled without accounting for these numbers is pretty disingenuous. These numbers not only include costs, but average life expectancies which are higher in a country like Canada, etc.

I just don't like simplistic, manipulative emotion-evoking statements that are lob-sided at best, disingenuous at worst. We've certainly had our fill of them under Bush.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Obama will rip the poopie out of all the freedoms you have left in your country.

Even still, I think he's the best the Democratic party has to offer at the moment (well, of the three candidates who are still in the race, there are significantly better presidential candidates within the Democratic party). The question for me is how he stacks up against whoever the Republicans end up nominating (I realize that Obama's nomination is not in the bag, but he's the only one of the three I'd even consider voting for).

So to answer the original question: I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican (I'm registered as a Libertarian, but I've got issues with them as well), but I'm certainly considering voting for Obama. I'm liking the way that this race is shaping up in that I might actually have to put some real thought into my vote. Assuming that Obama gets the nomination anyway, either of the others will almost definitely push me to vote Republican (unless it's Huckabee or Giuliani in which case I may have to abstain as I did in '04...).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is your source for the first point?

Wiki.

Banning semi-automatics is unconstitutional.

[Chuckit]

I don't vote for hollow rhetoric.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, to say that it is a given that public health would ultimately be more expensive once the dust has settled without accounting for these numbers is pretty disingenuous. These numbers not only include costs, but average life expectancies which are higher in a country like Canada, etc.

I just don't like simplistic, manipulative emotion-evoking statements that are lob-sided at best, disingenuous at worst. We've certainly had our fill of them under Bush.

Oh good, you had me really worried there for a second.

I agree that the situation is far from clear, and it certainly depends on the system that is designed. Clearly there are a lot of ways that we could build a public health system that would be much worse than what we currently have. I think we could also pretty clearly build one that's better, the question is how much it would cost. As with everything, finding the proper balance is the key.

Personally, I really like the idea of some sort of universal health care. It would be absolutely fantastic if we could provide top notch health care to everyone for a minimal cost. I just doubt our ability to actually do so. The potential to completely cock it up is far too great, especially when you consider all the multitude of competing interests at play in any government program. I tend to take the Libertarian approach of letting the market find the best approach, and I really do think that it's an approach that can do well if it's allowed to run it's course without interference. A lot of the problems with our current health care situation is due to poorly designed regulations. For example, why can't I buy a health insurance plan in Massachusetts with a $10,000 deductible? There are a few high deductible plans available in Massachusetts, but they also have pay-out caps. What the hell?

All I want from my health care is the guarantee that if I get hit by a car or contract some rare disease or even get cancer, that my bills aren't going to be ridiculous. I'm willing to shoulder up to $10,000 of that myself, but apparently that option isn't made available to me. Of course Massachusetts is a special case with a lot of health care regulation designed, apparently, to protect me from myself...

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't vote for hollow rhetoric.

So, you're abstaining, then?

[smacintush]

I think that if we had a Republican congress that Obama would be a great President.

In the context of a Democrat congress, I think he is far too liberal. Of course with the **** performance and popularity of the current Dem congress I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP took it back the next time around. If not, two years of a dyed-in-the-wool lib President and a lefty congress should do it.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you don't consider this question to be a threadjack, could you see yourself somewhat satisfied with McCain?

Only in that he's the one Republican running right now who's not bats**t insane. I think we could at least endure McCain. Romney, Huckabee and especially 9u11iani scare the crap out of me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wiki.

Banning semi-automatics is unconstitutional.

Does the right to bare arms include any possible weapon imaginable?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Oh good, you had me really worried there for a second.

I agree that the situation is far from clear, and it certainly depends on the system that is designed. Clearly there are a lot of ways that we could build a public health system that would be much worse than what we currently have. I think we could also pretty clearly build one that's better, the question is how much it would cost. As with everything, finding the proper balance is the key.

Personally, I really like the idea of some sort of universal health care. It would be absolutely fantastic if we could provide top notch health care to everyone for a minimal cost. I just doubt our ability to actually do so. The potential to completely cock it up is far too great, especially when you consider all the multitude of competing interests at play in any government program. I tend to take the Libertarian approach of letting the market find the best approach, and I really do think that it's an approach that can do well if it's allowed to run it's course without interference. A lot of the problems with our current health care situation is due to poorly designed regulations. For example, why can't I buy a health insurance plan in Massachusetts with a $10,000 deductible? There are a few high deductible plans available in Massachusetts, but they also have pay-out caps. What the hell?

All I want from my health care is the guarantee that if I get hit by a car or contract some rare disease or even get cancer, that my bills aren't going to be ridiculous. I'm willing to shoulder up to $10,000 of that myself, but apparently that option isn't made available to me. Of course Massachusetts is a special case with a lot of health care regulation designed, apparently, to protect me from myself...

You're cool with a $10,000, and presumably a co-pay after that?

Look into how much health care costs individual Canadians annually, it's about what many Americans pay in a month or two! Costs are flat out out-of-control here, and the reason why may be legitimately labeled a market failure. Why do you believe that the market will protect the interests of the citizens of this country? If your answer is heavy regulation, if we are going to regulate we also need oversight. At a certain point, wouldn't it be cheaper and more sensible to get rid of this administrative overhead, and simply expand upon Medicaid/Medicare? That's basically what Canada's system is - doctors are private entities, they bill Medicare (the name of Canada's system).

I'm not saying that we should model our system after Canada's, just using it is a frame of reference...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Obama will rip the poopie out of all the freedoms you have left in your country.

What about the poopie he'd likely shove back in?

(Habeas corpus, FISA court authority, etc.)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're cool with a $10,000, and presumably a co-pay after that?

Yes. Health insurance, in my mind, is there to protect individuals from health care costs that they can not afford. I could handle a $10,000 hospital bill. It wouldn't be easy, and I might even have to incur some debt to do it, but I could handle it. So could most people, they just don't want to have to. I don't want to have to either, but it's not very likely that I'll ever be in that situation regardless of what kind of insurance I have.

Look into how much health care costs individual Canadians annually, it's about what many Americans pay in a month or two! Costs are flat out out-of-control here, and the reason why may be legitimately labeled a market failure. Why do you believe that the market will protect the interests of the citizens of this country?

I don't. That's not what markets do.

What I do believe the market will do is provide the necessary services at the price point that best suites both the suppliers and the consumers. Yes, this requires that the consumers expend a little energy and think about the different options available to them. Oh darn.

And yes, the market will price it out of the reach of some people because yes, the market takes profit into consideration. There are a number of ways to deal with this, some of which we already do. Personally, I like the idea of no interest loans to cover health care costs; make sure that everyone can get the care they need, but also make sure that they still have to take some responsibility for it and it's not just some sort of free-ride gravy train. There are a number of other approaches that could be taken as well, but that's not really germane to this discussion.

If your answer is heavy regulation, if we are going to regulate we also need oversight. At a certain point, wouldn't it be cheaper and more sensible to get rid of this administrative overhead, and simply expand upon Medicaid/Medicare? That's basically what Canada's system is - doctors are private entities, they bill Medicare (the name of Canada's system).

I'm not sure what I've ever said that would make you think I'd consider heavy regulation as an answer to anything...

I'm not saying that we should model our system after Canada's, just using it is a frame of reference...

The problem I find with trying to use Canada or the UK or France as an example is that there is so much conflicting information coming from both sides of the argument on how well their systems do or don't work that I don't really know what to trust.

One thing that rarely gets brought up is Asian health care systems. Japan has some form of universal health care, though I don't know a whole lot about it (and haven't really heard good things from the people I know who've used it). Singapore also has some sort of universal health care that I actually have heard pretty good things about.

In my opinion, one of the greatest strengths of our country is the decentralized nature of much of it's government (well, it used to be anyway...). I think that one of the best approaches to a complex and divisive issues such as this really is to leave it up to the states. Not necessarily because I don't think the federal government has the constitutional authority to implement something like this (although I don't), but because that gives us the opportunity to try out multiple different systems. If California tries one system that works really well for them, and Minnesota tries out another that turns out to be a complete failure then Texas can learn from both states when working out their system. In that way we can figure out what actually does work the best, and since some people have different priorities and criteria when it comes to judging these things we can have different systems in different places to accommodate that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

What about the poopie he'd likely shove back in?

(Habeas corpus, FISA court authority, etc.)

I haven't lost my habeus corpus rights, so I don't need anybody to return them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I haven't lost my habeus corpus rights, so I don't need anybody to return them.

Can you clarify here?

You haven't encountered an issue with habeas corpus personally, or do you have a problem with the basic scenario in which the government could circumvent these rights?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

In my opinion, one of the greatest strengths of our country is the decentralized nature of much of it's government (well, it used to be anyway...). I think that one of the best approaches to a complex and divisive issues such as this really is to leave it up to the states. Not necessarily because I don't think the federal government has the constitutional authority to implement something like this (although I don't), but because that gives us the opportunity to try out multiple different systems. If California tries one system that works really well for them, and Minnesota tries out another that turns out to be a complete failure then Texas can learn from both states when working out their system. In that way we can figure out what actually does work the best, and since some people have different priorities and criteria when it comes to judging these things we can have different systems in different places to accommodate that.

Canada actually does a mixture of these things.

Technically, we don't really have "universal" health care; it's a provincial jurisdiction, so if one province decided to up and "go private" they could tell the federal government to **** right off. The feds eliminate this possibility by threatening to cut off the massive transfer payments (they send to each province) to such upstarts.

However, for some legal reason there does have to be some "universal" level of health care supplied no matter where one is in Canada. (I probably should know where that's from, but I don't. ) The upshot, however, is that there are some differences in health care between provinces, although those differences are quite small. For example, one province (Alberta, the most US-like right-wing province, haha) does charge for health care; but it's only $42 a month I think.

I don't know much more than that. Just putting my extremely limited knowledge in for provincial differences to the "universal health care system" in Canada.

greg

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I may have to abstain as I did in '04...).

One day my older brother was bitching about Reagan. I asked him did he vote in the last Presidential election. He said no. I told him he had no right to complain about who was in office if he did not vote. He agreed and has voted ever since

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wiki.

Banning semi-automatics is unconstitutional.

The NRA invited the press to a demonstration at a firing range. It showed that someone with a speed loader can reload a revolver and shoot as many rounds as someone armed with a semiautomatic pistol


MySpaceTV Videos: Speed loader by Wren

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does the right to bare arms include any possible weapon imaginable?

Ask the FSM

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

In the context of a Democrat congress, I think he is far too liberal. Of course with the **** performance and popularity of the current Dem congress I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP took it back the next time around. If not, two years of a dyed-in-the-wool lib President and a lefty congress should do it.

Hard to say. I think we'd need at least two years of both a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat-controlled Congress to undo a lot of the rubber-stamp BS that got pushed out in the last 6 years with both branches controlled by the Republicans.

That's probably what did the most damage, in my opinion. Fix some of that, and then give a Democratic president a Republican Congress.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Hard to say. I think we'd need at least two years of both a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat-controlled Congress to undo a lot of the rubber-stamp BS that got pushed out in the last 6 years with both branches controlled by the Republicans.

That's probably what did the most damage, in my opinion. Fix some of that, and then give a Democratic president a Republican Congress.

don't forget the Dems had control of the House for over 40 years prior to '94

[besson3c]

Ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[BlueSky]

Everything about Brocko Bomma seems to hang on his eloquent speeches, and I don't hear much else coming out of him. Maybe he's an inspiring speaker and that's it. Maybe he "inspires us to believe in ourselves again" or not, but I'm sick of hearing all that melodramatic drivel. For that reason alone I'm inclined to vote Clinton. I think she has a bigger pair then he does.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm also just reading on McCain's website how the road to health care reform doesn't involve a "hugely expensive government program". This is disingenuous. A public health care system is actually cheaper than a private system, according to the Wikipedia.

I'm sorry, but I have to re-read this in my own voice.
"I"m also just reading on McCain's website how the road to health care reform doesn't involve a "hugely expensive government program." This is disingenuous. A public health care system is actually cheaper than a private system, according to the Encyclopedia of Mob Truth."

(a) without my going to McCain's site, does he mean we could get a minimally expensive government program? Is he solely for private programs? And, is it disingenuous to you because of the cost part of his quote, or the side which attributes responsibility?
b) Wikipedia is a decent enough source for some things. It's really pathetic in the political arena. It very likely always will be. This is why I call it the Encyclopedia of Mob Truth. Nonhuman and others really covered it well when they posted about how much conflicting information there is on the various non-US systems.

More simply - who is to say that the numbers on Wikipedia are the whole story? Who is to say that they aren't being used by the different posters there to tell the story they wish to tell?

Personally, I like McCain's use of 'government' instead of 'public' where you chose to use public. It's more honest in my view.

This is an example of the general sort of distrust I feel and disingenuous information that I feel comes from the McCain campaign based on my perceptions (which albeit are not very well researched). I'm kind of meh about him so far, but have decided not to learn too much more about him until he wins the primary. I'm not a registered Republican or Democrat, so there isn't a whole lot of incentive for me to do this research, and if I were to vote as an independent I'd probably vote on a Democratic candidate anyway.

I need to get off my ass and get my citizenship in line so that I can vote.

Do you think you'll be able to get your citizenship in order by the time the general election comes about?

[vmarks]

Oh, on topic:

I'm not sure why so many people seem to believe that Barack Obama is pure as driven snow, that he's the genuine honest person that he projects.

I hear things like
"Obama has shown a real commitment to open government."
"Obama is working to fight corruption."
"Obama stands against bad governing."
"He’s fought against vote fraud. He’s been pushing for election and lobbying reform from the start, and in his campaign he’s refused to take lobbyist money."

But Obama's hands are not clean. He's a politician. He won his seat from Ryan, and he did it while Ryan self-destructed from his divorce to Jeri Ryan. It was a scandal, not "brilliant ideas," not "great policy" that won him the seat he currently holds.

He was a state senator before that, and he won that seat by defeating Alice Palmer. Palmer was a civil rights heroine. She had held the state senate seat for years, and decided she wanted to run for US Senate. She ran, and Obama announced his intention to run for her state senate seat.
She lost the US Senate race, and despite party officials asking him to back down and let her keep the state senate seat, he chose to use brass knuckle politics instead.

His aides went to the courthouse and looked into seeing how many signatures she had in support of her being on the ballot, and they found some signatures to be fake. Then they found other opponents had some fake signatures as well. By the time they were done, Obama was the only man left on the ballot.

This is how Chicago and the Democrat party works. It's well-known that Chicago is where the dead vote, and the mayor's name always ends in 'Daley.' It should come as no surprise that there were fake signatures among the petitions for ballot access, this was Chicago.

What is surprising is that everyone somehow believes that Obama, a Senator, has these clean guiltless hands.

[besson3c]

What is your source for this story vmarks?

To answer the question in your last post, I hope to have my citizenship by the general election. I've heard that the test is pretty easy, it's just a matter of getting it done.

[Chongo]

In 1960 Mayor Daily withheld the Cook county ballots until it was determined how many votes would be needed for JFK to win Illinois.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Too late. My dogs ate it when it showed up in their dinner bowl. RIP FSM

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is your source for this story vmarks?

To answer the question in your last post, I hope to have my citizenship by the general election. I've heard that the test is pretty easy, it's just a matter of getting it done.

Go to the local papers.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1,57567.story

And the national as well.

For Obama, a Handsome Payoff in Political Gambles

With regard to the test: it's not whether it's easy or hard, it's whether or not the DHS will put you on schedule in time.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I'm not sure why so many people seem to believe that Barack Obama is pure as driven snow, that he's the genuine honest person that he projects.

That's quite a straw man. No one think he's pure as driven snow, but Hillary Clinton, his main competition, has certainly been involved in politics for a long time, to put it nicely. Compared to the Clintons, he's much more untainted by politics.

[vmarks]

Hi BRussell,

I think you know me well enough to know by now that I am far from a fan of Mr. or Mrs. Clinton.

Just because I can detail some of the dirty politics of Mr. Obama does not mean that I believe Mrs. Clinton to be clean.

I think they're both dirty, and I am unable to bring myself to vote for either of them. I do not see much in the way of difference between their tactics or past actions. The only way I could see Mrs. Clinton as worse is if I bought into the silly nonsense that she had something to do with Vince Foster or the Boys on the Tracks, or any of the other weird conspiracy junk people made up about them. (My belief? There's enough dirt on the Clintons, no need to make up weird conspiracy junk.)

Mr. Obama also has a land scandal. Funny how he parallels the Clintons in some respects, no?
Again, go to the local papers: Obama's Rezko ties deeper than land deal :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Politics

[besson3c]

vmarks: if there is really truth to those scandals (and I'm not saying that there isn't any), why wouldn't other politicians shine light on these in an attempt to paint Obama in a bad light?

What I'm struggling with is what amount of political crap is par for the course, and what is unacceptable. I mean, I suspect you could comb through the past of any candidate running and pull up rather unflattering and ugly looking allegations.

[besson3c]

I wonder what kind of dirt could be pulled up regarding Edwards? Hmmm....

[chris v]

.His aides went to the courthouse and looked into seeing how many signatures she had in support of her being on the ballot, and they found some signatures to be fake. Then they found other opponents had some fake signatures as well. By the time they were done, Obama was the only man left on the ballot.

This is how Chicago and the Democrat party works. It's well-known that Chicago is where the dead vote, and the mayor's name always ends in 'Daley.' It should come as no surprise that there were fake signatures among the petitions for ballot access, this was Chicago.

"Everybody has always done it" isn't much of a defense in court. You're saying he was essentially using dirty politics by unearthing illegalities in the other campaigns, when it seems to me like in that situation, the dirty politics was theirs. Was he ever proven to have forged or faked or dead people's signatures on his petitions as well? If not, your "argument" is moot.

Oh, and will a conservative please point out the usefulness of mis-labeling the Democratic party the Democrat (sic) party? That's really wearing thin, 7 years on.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wonder what kind of dirt could be pulled up regarding Edwards? Hmmm....

Edwards has less dirt, because Edwards is a waste politically. Edwards was in Congress representing North Carolina, and he was absent much of the time, because he spent all his time touring the state, essentially campaigning for President while he was supposed to be serving in Congress. He did this practically from the day he won his Senate seat, before he ever declared for President.

While in Congress, the only things he ever sponsored were the 'gimme' resolutions that are non-controversial, such as 'a day to commemorate X' where X is something warm and fuzzy like school children, and the naming of local post offices.

Before he ran for Congress, he was an ambulance chaser attorney. His big case was a personal injury suit where a young girl sat on the drain of a swimming pool and had her intestines partly sucked out of her. Gross, very sad, and the girl will never be the same.

However, it was a controversial case in the news based on things like who had contributory negligence (North Carolina is one of four states that still has contributory negligence. In comparative negligence, the jury determines the amount of fault. For example, if a jury determines that you are entitled to $10,000 to compensate you for your injuries but also finds you 10 percent at fault, you would receive only $9,000. In North Carolina, in that same scenario, you would be entitled to nothing.)

FindLaw Newsmaker Profiles - John Edwards covers some of the cases.

Valerie Lakey, John Edwards and "Tort Reform" is a summary of the girl, Valerie Lakey, and her case. Did Edwards do the right thing in fighting for his client? Sure. Did he use the lawyer's fee to launch his career as a politician? Sure.

So, he did this, then he was a poor excuse for a representative once elected, and thus far has failed to achieve much. Other than provide a good example of what it means to live in the rich side of his 'two Americas' - in Raleigh, he lived inside the Beltline, where the old Rich live, across from the Carolina Country Club. Then he moved out to a large expanse of land just outside of the People's Republic of Chapel Hill, one of the politically far left places in the state. (Chapel Hill's town council unanimously voted to impeach President Bush, forgetting entirely that they lack the authority to perform the impeachment.) Some people believe that Chapel Hill's town council was trying to distract attention from the corruption of Democrats in the state legislature in Raleigh (wag the dog style) - but it didn't much help if that was the case.

Edwards Home County's Largest

The 28,200 sq ft. home Edwards now lives in is one of the county's largest. The covered walkway that connects his main home and his recreation building is 2200 sq ft. This walkway is larger than my whole house.

To be clear, I do not begrudge him his wealth. He's done things to earn it, and he can buy whatever home he can afford, no questions. However, I think his 'two Americas' class warfare is reprehensible, especially when he's claiming to represent the little guy, the guy whose America hasn't been as good as Edwards' has.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by chris v 

"Everybody has always done it" isn't much of a defense in court. You're saying he was essentially using dirty politics by unearthing illegalities in the other campaigns, when it seems to me like in that situation, the dirty politics was theirs. Was he ever proven to have forged or faked or dead people's signatures on his petitions as well? If not, your "argument" is moot.

Oh, and will a conservative please point out the usefulness of mis-labeling the Democratic party the Democrat (sic) party? That's really wearing thin, 7 years on.

Obama's petitions also had faked signatures. He just made sure that his had fewer. It's easy when your aides are doing the counting and challenging.

I'm not supportive of the 'everyone is doing it' bit - I pointed it out for the benefit of those unfamiliar with Chicago's history.

[besson3c]

Who do you like for president vmarks, and if I were to run a Google search of your favorite candidate, what would I turn up?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is your source for the first point? What I've come up with as far as his stance on guns is as follows:

Here's some info about his Patriot Act stance:

The PATRIOT Act | U.S. Senator Barack Obama

I'm not big on the patriot act either, but this URL should provide some decent basis for debate here...

I have to agree, he's more 2nd Amendment friendly than any other Democrat in this election. That does go a long way towards earning my trust.

Hmmm... I'd have to say I'd vote for him over Giuliani.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who do you like for president vmarks, and if I were to run a Google search of your favorite candidate, what would I turn up?

That's easy. I don't have a favorite candidate this election season.

I have as yet been unable to conclude who will get my vote. I've only been able to conclude who will not receive it.

I normally don't have this problem.

[Arty50]

I've been a registered republican for the past 13 years. I have no desire to change that. And I'm really hoping Obama wins the Democratic nomination, because he's the first candidate I truly WANT to vote for.

This was posted elsewhere, but I consider it required watching if you're truly interested in learning about him: Obama interview with Reno Gazette Journal

Not only does this interview put to rest that notion that he lacks substance, but it also gives you some great insight into the man. In fact, I can't ever recall a candidate being so candid about their strengths and weaknesses. Most people on a job interview aren't that honest. And you have to admit, running for president is pretty much the ultimate job interview. This is so important. If you know your weaknesses, then you also know how to address them and overcome them. Unlike say Bush, who has pretty much never admitted to messing up.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That's easy. I don't have a favorite candidate this election season.

I have as yet been unable to conclude who will get my vote. I've only been able to conclude who will not receive it.

I normally don't have this problem.

Ditto. This election season is terrible. I'm going to be pissed no matter who's in the White House next.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

She lost the US Senate race, and despite party officials asking him to back down and let her keep the state senate seat, he chose to use brass knuckle politics instead.

She also promised him she wouldn't run for state senate if she lost the US bid, and Obama made clear to her before he ran that once he announced he was running (which he had at that point) that it would be very difficult to back down.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

and they found some signatures to be fake.

Some?

She needed 757 signatures to get on the ballot. She submitted 1,580.

That means more than half of them were fake.

Did you read past the sensationalist opening paragraph of that Tribune article? The Tribune is a total rag.

Why should Obama have given her, or anyone else in that election, a pass?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does the right to bare arms include any possible weapon imaginable?

Yes. Otherwise it's an infringement.

The second was designed to protect the people from the government. If the government has army dudes toting M-16s and the people have catapults, then it's an unfair fight.