Will Obama make change?

[Crossroads Inc.]

And why does the abstience make it a bunch of shit in the first place?

Because Abstinence as whole is a Bullshit proposal and is proven time and again NOT to work. We know for a fact that Obama has not intention of implamennting it at all and plans to provide Sex Education. Since it is included in the article, making it SEEM as if Obama was FOR abstinence we can dismiss the article as a whole as Bullshit.

[Darth Wong]

I would agree with the latter but not the former. I've had to look hard on this forum to find people criticizing the Democratic party. Admittedly this is because they have not been acting like complete knuckle-knobs (all though they were kind of limp/innefectual until they regained a majority in '06).

What sort of criticisms are you looking for? Campaign ineptitude? Being far too right-wing for a "liberal party"? People complain about that all the fucking time, unless you are simply lying about "looking hard". Or are you expecting us to give certain Republitard arguments serious consideration, like the "soft on terror" or "going against god's will" bullshit?

Given the Democratic Party's close ties to organized labour, a lot of Canadians are very concerned that the Democrats are likely to be more trade protectionist than the Republicans, which could hurt Canada's export business. That's our bottom line right there, and a Democrat victory in 2008 could hurt it.

I admit I haven't even considered this issue. Embarassingly enough I've been more focused on the stupid peripheral issues a lot of people have thrown up to distinguish the parties.

If you're one of those voters, I don't think you have much ground to be criticizing anyone.

[RedImperator]

If you'd read the article, you'd understand that they put it in alphabetical order.

Um...okay? So what? Who cares why they actually put it first? Do you have anything to add besides bizarre, pointless responses?

Your preceding comment was blasting the article for putting abstinence first, as if that would make it a bunch of lies. They put it first because they decided to put some order in the article.

No, you fucking idiot, that wasn't what I was blasting the article for. I was blasting the article for being bullshit, and the passage on abstinence is all the proof I need. I had thought the abstinence passage was so self-evidently ridiculous that I didn't need to explain any further; I promise, in future posts, to take your stupidity into account.

And why does the abstience make it a bunch of shit in the first place?

Because it dishonestly conflates Bush's abstinence-only policy with Obama's comprehensive sex-ed policy. The author is trying to make diametrically opposed positions seem the same because they share one common element. This is complete bullshit, and more than enough to dismiss the article's author as a lying hack. The fact you couldn't figure that out on your own just goes to show you're dumber than a bag of dicks.

[SirNitram]

The new GI Bill, opposed by McCain and Bush. How's that for groundbreaking, radical change?

Of course, if you were to enlighten yourself as to the spread of the votes and the procedures of the House and Senate, perhaps you'd make more headway in knowing why there was not radical change. Not to mention vetos.

Well, forgive me for not trusting politicians as much as you do.

Yes, well, I have this amazing tendency to trust them to have continued doing what they, in the past, have done. They will largely stick to their patterns of behavior.

What of the latest budgets though? Giving tax cuts to corporations, while send the country further into debt?

Massive recession/depression, wonder-boy, you don't get out without debt. The most recent cuts, of course, were to help push along alternative/renewable power sources.

And of course, you could examine not just who gets the tax cuts, but the proposed budgets and how much of an effect they'll have on the government debt. Like comparing the health proposals of the two candidates, and seeing the enormous increase McCain will bring over Obama.

But this all requires intellectual honesty and abandoning of the fallacious 'Golden Mean' thought process.

While Obama seems very different from McCain, how different are his advisors and those who would make up his government?

Let's see. Biden as VP, whose adopted pet issues like transport that isn't cars and protecting women from crimes, or Palin as VP, whose been found guilty of abuse of power, hired a personal lobbyist for a single town, and of course, fought against the practice of paying for a victim's rape kit.

The only 'likely' name for the rest of government from either is Phil Gramm by McCain. If you were to actually do some research, you'd notice Gramm was instrumental in removing the laws(Regulations are laws, after all) that led to the market's meltdown.

But all of this.. All of it.. Requires that you do more than sit on your lazy, candy-ass, insisting others do all the work, and pretending you have an intellect by substituting cynicism and golden mean fallacies for actual neural connections.

[Coyote]

As to the health care issue, it is sensible politics for Obama to avoid any hint of "socialized medicine" if he wants to remain a viable candidate. There is such a deep-rooted, knee-jerk terror of any sort of "socialism" in America that many people would rather spend $1,000.00 a month on free-market insurance that will reluctantly cover a handful of aiments than spend $100.00 a month in extra taxes for a socialized medical system that covers everything-- because "it's Gawd-damn government socialism!!!!"

No candidate that wants to be elected anything beyond dog catcher will not breathe a word of socialized medecine.

[LMSx]

Keeping on that abstinence topic, I'm curious about CNN's blind quote of "Teach both abstinence and contraception to teens". Either they've quoted someone unfamiliar with Bush's policies for the past 8 years or they're being massively deceitful by not noting a new policy change for FY 2009.

[Quetzalcoatl]

What sort of criticisms are you looking for? Campaign ineptitude? Being far too right-wing for a "liberal party"? People complain about that all the fucking time, unless you are simply lying about "looking hard". Or are you expecting us to give certain Republitard arguments serious consideration, like the "soft on terror" or "going against god's will" bullshit?

No. You don't need the Democrats to make the Republicans look stupid and (less often) vice versa. I'm talking about stuff like the Patriot Act. Yes Obama has said that he doesn't like it, and helped to Fillibuster it in '05 (?), but unless I'm mistaken, his position is something along the lines of "as it is now it isn't right, but some of the principles are good". I am frustrated here because I don't agree at all with the Patriot Act.

(http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/20 ... nt_p_1.php)

Coyote brought up the point of politicking again. Maybe this campaign position is something he was somewhat coerced into given our whole National Security fixation.

I admit I haven't even considered this issue. Embarassingly enough I've been more focused on the stupid peripheral issues a lot of people have thrown up to distinguish the parties.

I'm talking about the mud-slinging, that is to say following through accusations of 'terrorist' and 'nutjob' that come from both sides. This is my first year as a voter, so I'm focused on this stuff primarily because I'm incredulous that anybody could get away with it. I don't consider them to be valid issues, but they are the ones bandied about me most frequently and thus I spend a lot of time arguing with other people about them.