panthermatt7

I can see you've put plenty of thought into your vote. Like I said, I decided about a week ago. Anyone who votes Republican clearly doesn't think. (According to this board, at least.)

Well, that's only a half-true assessment of the scenario, really. Yes, my individual tax rate would go down under Obama (I'm at approx $54,000/yr, so firmly in the middle class). However, I also work for a giant insurance/financial corporation. Thus, if corporate tax rates are hiked, as well as tax rates for the rich, that would likely not benefit me; I'm pretty sure that the Company would choose a higher profit, as well as higher management bonuses and salaries, than to keep me on board. Know what I mean? I keep forgetting, when the Obama tax plan was the code for corporations and wealthy people in the 1990s, did everybody in the financial sector lose their jobs? Or was there more employment and prosperity at that point? The 90s tech boom resulted in profits of such magnitude that taxes are almost irrevelant to the discussion. I think a better basis of comparison would be the 80s.

Well, that's only a half-true assessment of the scenario, really. Yes, my individual tax rate would go down under Obama (I'm at approx $54,000/yr, so firmly in the middle class). However, I also work for a giant insurance/financial corporation. Thus, if corporate tax rates are hiked, as well as tax rates for the rich, that would likely not benefit me; I'm pretty sure that the Company would choose a higher profit, as well as higher management bonuses and salaries, than to keep me on board. Know what I mean?

As a former Obama supporter (and campaign donor, for that matter), I suppose the only reason that I hold the "change" formula to a higher degree is because I've heard speeches, more speeches and even more speeches about being brave enough to change, changing, hope, etc. The whole "uplifting" part of his speaking is the rhetoric that he's using. If he doesn't actually believe that rhetoric, then... well... I guess he's useless in my mind. I would love to hear a different point of view on the topic. I'm looking for a reason, ANY reason, to vote for either ticket. I just haven't found any. I'm feeling the same quandary in the Norm Coleman/Al Franken contest for Senate here in MN.

Kind of like supporting an Obama/Biden ticket for "change," even though one of those senators has been in Washington for over thirty years, and been a key part of the corrupt establishment. Eh? I hate that both of the tickets are contradictory. McCain is running on experience, but has attached himself to someone that has none. Obama is running on change and a fresh face in Washington, but Biden is one of the most experienced game-players around.

Indeed. Now let's start applying that standard to Palin.

Eliminating the tiny amount of competition that exists in the health insurance marketplace in favor of one government-run entity hardly sounds like a good idea to me. If you think prices suck now, just imagine what they'd be like with no competition -- it'd be like taxes, basically (far too high). Personally, I'd like to see all people below a specific income level to be given state-run health care. Dependant on the income number given, that could remove enough people from the marketplace to cause actual competition amongst the insurance giants, thus driving down prices. Just my opinion, I suppose.

I don't even need to say anything. Wait... why not? The rest of the letter may be ridiculous, but that part actually makes sense. That's my biggest concern regarding government-controlled health care. That exact thing is happening in countries with nationalized medicine; what would stop it from happening here?

Olberman had about 4 different videos of her trying to differ from the constitution's job description Usually Olbermann tries to change the Constitution himself. He rarely needs the help of others. It's funny when anyone tries to quantify Olbermann as anything more than the liberal equivalent of Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly. Oh I fully realize he's just the Democratic version of those guys... I object on the grounds that Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh are all completely different types of partisans. Hannity: ignore the facts and tow the party line; only have guest on that agree with you. Limbaugh: stick to your principles, no matter who or what facts say others wise; guest are irrelevant because no one can tell him anything he can't say himself in a more entertaining way. O'Reilly: on a mission to argue with the other side; have on guests that you can confront. Of these three, I'd say Olbermann is 65% Hannity (guest philosophy) and 35% Limbaugh (especially his "special comment" rants and value of being entertaining). To me, Hannity is the worst of the bunch because we will literally tow WHATEVER the Republican Party line of the moment is, with no thought or analysis. Olbermann can be pretty grating because while I appreciate he's calling attention to a lot of things that might get ignored, the one-sidedness of it is disconnected from reality or use of irrational arguments to draw attention away from the faults of Democrats. Well said.

Olberman had about 4 different videos of her trying to differ from the constitution's job description Usually Olbermann tries to change the Constitution himself. He rarely needs the help of others. It's funny when anyone tries to quantify Olbermann as anything more than the liberal equivalent of Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly.

No, it doesn't. its like, Change + inisim. You used no part of socialism, not even the suffix, because you used -isim. Try harder next time. (no points quote here) Changialism.

You have to admit you at least had to listen to it more than once before you realized what he really said. But we're overlooking the main point which was that he said there were a lot of rich people to tax. No, I didn't. And no, we're not. All I got out of this was someone trying to make a joke, and someone who takes themselves way too seriously.

See, here I was all this time thinking neither candidate was running for the position as representative of a major religion, but for chief executive of a representative democracy. To me, the idea that divine intervention in the election is required, because someone who is well-liked by people of different religions might win, is appalling. As a Christian, that is one of the most appalling things I've ever heard. I hate the kind of prayers where people try to tell God what's right or wrong. "God, you should probably do this... I'm only telling you because you don't already know." Absolutely incredible how a PASTOR can pigeonhole God like that. It's disgusting.

It is already, actually.

Agreed, 909. I wish people would stop assuming that all opposing viewpoints are evidence of retardation. Love it!

And as for this part of your comment, uh, hello out there? The public was against the bailout, against money being given to AIG after their retreat soon after getting 85 billion, is against the Fed's move to pour upwards of 1.5 trillion into the market (by pour, I mean run the printing press)...what's going to stop the government from doing this too? Everything the government has done thus far, the public's been against it. The vaunted emergency factor has been the reason all along. What they think is best for the market is best for us too, and we should just give them opportunities to do as they please. Are you saying that, due to this economic crisis, the American Government is going to go from "Market" to "Socialist" in a heartbeat? Again, I point to the New Deal, and the fact that we aren't socialists after that. Explain to me how this is any different. I don't see the fear of a new "socialist" government. We've been through this before, and we didn't become the USSA. Are you suggesting they just let the market fail? Don't you think that could have worse results? The only problem I have with the bailout is: since the government's doing it, of course it's going to be way overdone. $85 billion plus for AIG wasn't necessary to salvage the company. Some help was needed, but not to the extent that they acted. However, as an employee at a prominent retirement investments company, I can tell you that the fairytale philosophy of "let the market correct itself!" would be a TERRIBLE idea. All the right wing pundits are screaming for it, but it's really easy to be clairvoyant on the outside. But letting millions of people lose their jobs through sinking corporations wouldn't be an accurate, nor quick, solution.

Mike, your opinions on this matter are wrong. You have no idea what a fascist government looks like. The United States is FAR from a fascist government, no matter how you look at it. That is all that needs to be said on this matter, and no more. People generally want to view corporate America and the government as mutually exclusive beings. Thus, when people hear of the government stepping in to bail out (or run) corporations, you hear them deride it as 'socialism.' On the flip side, when corporate America is seen to be influencing specifics in the government -- i.e. Dick Cheney's entire vice presidency -- you hear cries of 'fascism.' In reality, we're nowhere close to both. However, when an element of either is introduced, you'll hear it from both parties.

Honestly, though, the hatred for Obama makes a LOT of sense. Not because he actually deserves it, but because every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. As people hail Obama as the next uniting political figure, a savior of American politics, and a worldwide cultural phenomenon -- and even write hymns about him ( ) -- there are going to be people that don't WANT the same brand of change he promises, and have the same degree of disdain for him as his supporters' admiration. The biggest issue is that people can't take a deep breath, remove themselves, step back and realize that they're both politicians. All campaign promises, slogans and songs aside, they're both cut from the same mold: they will make whatever promises are necessary to ultimately achieve election.

Funny story (well, sorta): I live in Minneapolis, which has a pretty even split of liberals and conservatives - in my social circles, at least. So, I'm used to negative talk about Palin. However, I went to Nashville last weekend for a wedding. At the bachelor party, which was occurring at a sports bar at the same time as the VP debate (which they were showing on some of the TVs), I called Palin a "right wing idiot." I've never had a group of guys argue SO hard with me to the contrary. I had forgotten I was in the South, which is a very different atmosphere. One other thing: is it just me, or does every supporter of Palin (male or otherwise) seem to mention her attractiveness as a reason for liking her?

Yeah, the site isn't all that honest. Looking at the Freep Article, ACORN isn't portrayed nearly as bad. And as noted above, they legally have to turn in all voter registrations, even flagging them and telling them beforehand. Plus, the website also has the wrong number of falsely registered people (They say 2,000 out of 5,000 were legal, but in the article only about 1,500 are fraudulent). Another fun thing is the New Mexico one, which the case was apparently dropped due to lack of evidence. Do you ever fucking fact check your sources, Marvin? Hell, one of the prosecutors in the Washington case outright said that it wasn't an attempt to influence an election, but just to get paid. And again, I point to the fact that they attempt to confirm all applications and flag bad ones. The problem is that, by law, they legally have to hand them all in, even if they know they are bad. I've never thought of ACORN having a specific party affiliation. I've just thought of them as being a negative presence in the U.S. election scene. If there's anything that we can't afford in a country that already has zero confidence in our political figures, it's a fraudulent election. If they're indeed required by law to submit 'bad' registrations, then let's change the law and move on with our lives. This is the kind of B.S. that detracts from campaigns, rather than focusing on actual policy ideals. But let's be honest, Nightwing. If it appeared that ACORN was registering fake voters in a primarily Republican manner, you would be yelling about it with righteous indignation.

The same way that Obama supporters have flip flopped to support Obama's various economic plans and stances on trade embargos, I suppose. A politician flip-flopping on an issue isn't exactly something new... Yeah, flip-flopping on trade embargoes with Cuba and changing your entire economic philosophy in the matter of two weeks is really the same thing. Just noting an example that all politicians flip-flop, that's all.

The same way that Obama supporters have flip flopped to support Obama's various economic plans and stances on trade embargos, I suppose. A politician flip-flopping on an issue isn't exactly something new...

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that the board is mostly liberal and liberal hob-nobbing is going to take place, but Matt rarely puts anything worth talking forward in his responses. It's always just trolling everyone else's posts, hiding behind the curtain of being an "independent." Of course, he's rarely ever defended any of his positions, or hell, even put them forward; most of his posts are concentrated around blowing whistles at us and shouting LIBERAL BIAS from the soap box. Now, name-calling doesn't do anyone any good. Agent's right, calling Marvin a retard without making a point is denigrating the thread. But, as numerous examples from this and many other threads will show, Marvin makes a lot of stupid points. It's like the rule of the facepalm, where something is so inane that it defies logical breakdown and explanation. Are we not allowed to call Marvin on his shit? What positions of mine would you like me to defend? Sorry if I'm crossing the line to 'trolling,' I certainly don't intend to. And I'm glad that people eventually understood my point on Marvin.

It sure does suck having opposing viewpoints... ON A MESSAGE BOARD. If you can't handle opposing viewpoints, maybe you shouldn't be discussing politics in the first place. Are you aware of Marvin's past posts? Liberal Bias and whatnot has little to do with the fact that he sucks. I'm not defending Marvin's content, just his right to put forth content without being called a fucking idiot, as in previous posts. And liberal bias does have at least a little to do with it. If Marvin was putting forth ideas that you agreed with in a retarded way, you probably wouldn't insult his intelligence. That's my hunch, anyway.

It sure does suck having opposing viewpoints... ON A MESSAGE BOARD. If you can't handle opposing viewpoints, maybe you shouldn't be discussing politics in the first place.