So if that's fixed, what's wrong with the corporations getting a slice of the pie?

That means some of Obama's promises of change = bullshit.

And McCain doesn't promise change? I thought that was one of his slogans, too.

Johnny, an American, does not care about those issues. I care about education, climate change, and energy plans.

McCain's change isn't much drastic as Obama's. Like I said, Obama's position is much like a propaganda. He is trying to appeal to his followers but not really do anything at all. What I'm really worried about is Obama's military positions. After all, the President = Commander in Chief.

And... what, exactly will McCain do? Obama addressed the issues as much as if not more than McCain did. You can't say that because a person wants a bit more change they're more propagandaish.

Plus, I already said that if Palin becomes president because of McCain's death, we're screwed. Any response? McCain is 72. I think average American white male life span was 73 or so, maybe 74. And he could always be on the unlucky end.

I hate how people keep using McCain's age as an excuse. If you research his health, he is really healthy right now. Average doesn't mean anything and MOST people his age can't even talk, see, or walk properly. I see him doing everything well.

McCain had skin cancer, and four years is a long time. Plenty can change. And why you say that most 70 year olds can't talk see or walk properly, I'll never know.

Presidents had died before, younger then McCain is now. On a admittedly small but possible (15%?) chance that it does happen, defend Palin. It's easy to attack her, so I'll do it. Plus, you keep attacking Obama about things that apply equally to McCain, so this argument is boring. Defend Palin as a President in case something happens to McCain. On the 1/20 chance that he is shot (Two presidents were shot, right?), on the chance that he gets cancer and even if not dead becomes unable to control the country, or that he simply dies of more-or-less natural causes. Make me believe, however half-heartedly that the lady who's declaring personal wars left and right, who can't handle interviews with the media, who's abused power before (gotta luv teh news), and who literally believes in creationism is a fitting, capable president.

I'm now starting to believe more and more that McCain has made a mistake picking Palin as his VP when he could've easily picked other much better candidates. This in short is one huge factor in drawing me a little bit closer towards Obama/Biden.

Unrelated, but I was just chilling with one of my friends the other day, he is a flaming liberal/democrat and he is like... omfg obsessed with Palin. He's like "Omfg she's so hawt. I'm probably going to vote for McCain!" I doubt he was serious, but I've never seen anyone so overly obsessed with the "hotness" of a MILF. Everytime we see a shot of her on TV, he's like "Wow look at that ass, damn she's got a nice figure, ohohohoooo." He said that McCain made a smart move by picking Palin because this could potentially attract a lot of young liberal/democratic men.

I've been playing defensive this whole time, time for me to go offense.
Joe Biden isn't such a great VP canidate too. He has anger issues and a short temper. Not to mention that he is only 6 years younger than McCain. So back to the topic of the average American living to around 70, when Obama "possibly" gets assassinated, and Biden becomes President, what is the chance that Biden won't die in office? His age, afterall is 66, where as McCain is 72.

6 years difference is a lot. And talking about Biden's temper while supporting McCain is really ironic. McCain's noted for his occasional outbursts. Biden just doesn't stop talking.

Still doesn't change the fact that Joe Biden has a temper.

Now, you're just haggling for anything you can grasp. You can't argue that Palin is better then Biden, and you can't seem to argue that McCain's better then Biden either. You're just saying they have some of the same problems. Come on.

I don't agree with Obama/Biden's political positions, that is all I'm saying.

You didn't say anything like that. You attacked Biden's temper. And Obama's donations. You don't have any arguments other then that that you've shown me. You talk about generic, mysterious 'positions' that are changed by donations, when the same applies to McCain. And you talk about Biden's temper, which also applied to McCain. And don't get me started in this same post about Palin.

I've posted my disagreements in previous posts. I'll list some anyways.
- Healthcare plan - It will increase our taxes rapidly; it will also take a lot of money from our treasury, which we can't since we are in heavy debt and economic troubles. Health insurance is not free, people don't seem to know that
- War - He wants to move out of Iraq without finishing the job, therefore putting out troop's effort to waste; He wants to send our troops to another nation, Kuwait and many others to start another war (Not dealing with the War on Terror, which America is trying to end); He doesn't have any military intelligence
- Energy - His economic plan fails, it is basically the same thing as we have currently have. Instead of focusing on an alternative energy source, he wants to continue with oil & coal.
- Space - He wants to immediately put this on halt.

Both candiates also seem to ignore many domestic issues, like the poor. We have many homeless people in the United States, I see many of them in the subways and I'm always giving them some of my money. Bush tried to put an effort in this but it never went through.

Also, I don't support McCain, but I do prefer him over Obama's policies.

If we weren't being taxed to pay for the health care, we would be paying it with our own money anyways. But if we have universal healthcare, it will lower costs overall because hundreds of millions of people will share the costs.


A. Our troops' efforts have already been wasted. They were told they were fighting to protect America, to liberate an oppressed people and bring peace to the world. Now, terrorists in the mountains of Pakistan are busy plotting attacks on the United States, while Iraq is dominated by a government full of corrupt self-serving officials while sectarian violence causes hundreds of deaths. Our troops have worked and worked, but it doesn't matter how hard they work, because the problem in Iraq is political and not military in nature.

B. Kuwait is our ally, and Obama never said he wanted to send our troops there, and he never said he wanted to start another war. He said he wants to end the war in Iraq and move all those troops to Afghanistan so we can destroy Al Quaeda, because Al Quaeda is over in Central Asia.

McCain is the one who wants to dril drill drill.

So? Who cares about space right now, honestly? We don't have the time or money to reconquer the moon right now, and besides, we don't even know enough about our own planet let alone space.


Poor people in the United States are infinitely better off than poor people in say, Africa or Asia. Nevertheless, the reason poor people are neglected is because they can't vote. Either way, Democrats have a history of funding programs such as welfare to help the poor.

Tut our taxes will increase. You're missing the point.


We can't leave Iraq if it is unstable.

Actually, Obama wants to. McCain wants nuclear facilities.



The Space program is very important to us, as for our limited resources and such.

Poor people in the United States are infinitely better off than poor people in say, Africa or Asia. Nevertheless, the reason poor people are neglected is because they can't vote. Either way, Democrats have a history of funding programs such as welfare to help the poor.[/quote]
Who said anything about poor? I said homeless.

Obama said that taxes won't be raised on most people. I doubt that he'd go back on one of his main points. And, honestly, McCain wants more war. You think your taxes are going to be kept low if he declares war on say Iran?
I only heard about Afghanistan, which is part of the War on Terror. Which is a really stupid war anyway. Nothing about Kuwait was heard by me. As to leaving Iraq without finishing, honestly, your country's economy is breaking apart and you want to pay $10 billion a month to a country that has things more or less under control?
I'm not really familiar with the differences between the economic plans of the two candidates. Except for the more regulation (what has been succeeding in China) and less regulation (which screwed over the whole world) bit. Enlighten me. On the energy thing, building 45 (or even 5) nuclear power plants is impossible within the next four years. There's no easy way out of dependency (if any). However, I agree that McCain's bit in this is better then Obamas, if slightly. Neither energy plan has much merit. 45 nuclear power plants will make a rather small dent in energy sources.
America's busy losing more things then a space race. Focus on domestic first, outer space later. Plus, while NASA's floundering, Roscosmos can get stronger (Russian NASA) .
What, give homeless people free money? Those systems exist. At any time, homeless people could go into a shelter or something like that, provided they are willing to work. Those that aren't willing to work deserve it. As Alfa said, better be poor homeless in America then Africa.
McCain's supporting both Nuclear and drilling. Obama's supporting both Clean and drilling. Not much of a difference.

Read your own post. You said: .


Yes, actually, we can. They have an $80 billion dollar surplus. It's time we get out, because if we stay there, they'll simply be dependent on us. It's time they fix their own country.


Actually; http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2008/06/mccain_lets_drill_offshore_us.html

Mccain wants offshore drilling. McCain also wants nuclear facilities and reprocessing of nuclear fuel. What he doesn't tell you is that reprocessing nuclear fuel costs absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, so much so that most countries have simply stopped reprocessing nuclear fuel simply because of the massive expenses that make reprocessing unfeasible.


No it's not. As much as I respect scientists at NASA, their studies of space are simply not valuable to the United States at this time. We have much bigger problems to worry about.


No, you are. If we pay taxes to get health care, the health care we receive will therefore be "free", having been funded through taxes. And since the burden will be shared between millions of Americans, the tax increases will be justified because we will no longer be paying for health care. So overall, we'll be paying less.