I am voting for Obama

[Tallpine]

You know, if I really believed that Obomba would bring all our troops home the day after his inagauration, I might possibly consider voting for him.  But over the past 100 years, the democrats have not exactly proven themselves to be the "anti-war" party    More likely he would just get us involved in more foreign conflicts.

As far as "civil liberties" I consider gun rights to be right at the top of the list.  Obama doesn't rate very high on that one

I just don't get it with the democrats  The past two elections they have had the chance to nominate somebody reasonably moderate, but they insist on nominating the most far out extreme leftists.  They could have beaten Bush easily in 2004 had they picked almost anyone but Kerry.  Same this year.  It's going to be close.  It's almost as if both parties are trying to lose the election  

I'm still waiting to see who gets picked for running mates.  If McCain picks Bloomberg then to hell with him.    I will "throw my vote away" to Barr.

[ilbob]

McCain may be less than optimal and no Ronald Reagan, but he is not Obama.

Which is a really good reason to vote for McCain, as suboptimal as he is.

The thing that is really scary about Obama is he is another Jimmy Carter but with no military experience, no governing experience, and even less of a clue that the rest of the world is full of bad people who want to harm us.

[MicroBalrog]

McCain is not just less than optimal. He's horrid.

[Manedwolf]

Now lets be clear. I want both due process and the right to bear arms. So, that begs the question, how do we get both? I think the answer lies not just in being politically active on gun rights, but on due process too. That is why I am willing to have Obama in the whitehouse. I truly believe we will gain far more on due process and other issues than we will loose on gun rights.

So instead of just possibly losing your civil rights, you want to vote to definitely lose your gun rights, then your rights to free speech, and then your civil rights when you can't do anything about it at all.

You can't even see that the reason why any government is afraid to squeeze a socialist iron fist is due to the fact that the population is armed, and would resist not with silly "Red Dawn" charges, but with single cracks of scoped shots from here and there and everywhere, unfindable and unstoppable.

Your sort is the problem, that you would vote this way. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and you're just blindly looking at the sky while driving.

[MicroBalrog]

So instead of just possibly losing your civil rights, you want to vote to definitely lose your gun rights, then your rights to free speech, and then your civil rights when you can't do anything about it at all.

[Manedwolf]

McCain is not just less than optimal. He's horrid.

I'm honestly glad you can't vote in our election this time. I'll just say that.

Because your valuing of making a statement instead of taking the needed action is literally p*ssing in the wind, and is completely disconnected from the reality we're facing here.

Maybe one day you'll understand the reality of having to make a choice that's the lesser of two evils, because you're not offered another choice. Then again, maybe you won't.

[MicroBalrog]

I've never said anything about "making a statement", or at least not in the sense you use the term.

[Dntsycnt]

Maned:  So you don't think McCain is horrid?

[Fjolnirsson]

Myself, I can't see much difference between the pusher robot and the shover robot, but that doesn't mean I don't have an obligation to try to make the best decision for my country. I "feel" that McCain might be least bad for the country.
Both of them want me to go down the stairs, but pushed, or shoved?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E0ot9iJm_k

[Nick1911]

McCain is not just less than optimal. He's horrid.

I'm honestly glad you can't vote in our election this time. I'll just say that.

Because your valuing of making a statement instead of taking the needed action is literally p*ssing in the wind, and is completely disconnected from the reality we're facing here.

Maybe one day you'll understand the reality of having to make a choice that's the lesser of two evils, because you're not offered another choice. Then again, maybe you won't.

And how exactly is the "lesser of two evils" method working out for you?  Socialism quick, or socialism fast - fantastic.  I'm not saying that we have other options - just that the "lesser of two evils" is a failed policy. 

[Nick1911]

You are talking about the order in which you think things "will" happen.
What you have missed is that the loss of due process has already happened.
Not to mention loss of privacy and the rest of the Patriot Act concessions.

And what is Obama going to do to fix that?  Make NSA snooping on telephone lines illegal?  Repeal the Patriot Act? 

[Manedwolf]

Maned:  So you don't think McCain is horrid?

McCain sucks but is survivable. Obama would be absolute disaster.

There are no other choices at this juncture. If you think otherwise, stop smoking pot.

[longeyes]

There's a bright line around the First and Second Amendments.

Lose those two and you no longer have America.  Those are the twin palladiums of everything we have stood for since 1776.

You may have Another Civilized Nation but you don't have America.  The essence of this country has been, is, and will be political liberty.  It is not about more creature comforts or cheap gasoline or more welfare.

McCain is far from ideal, as almost all of us here know, but he does not wish to transform America into one more "Euro-utopia."

[Perd Hapley]

What has Obama promised to do, specifically, about restoring civil liberties which Bush is accused of violating or threatening?  Is he likely to come through on these promises? 


Regardless what the answer may be, it is absurd to hope that a liberal Democrat will be more friendly to our rights.  By definition, such a person is dedicated to the destruction of liberty. 

[De Selby]

What has Obama promised to do, specifically, about restoring civil liberties which Bush is accused of violating or threatening?  Is he likely to come through on these promises? 


Regardless what the answer may be, it is absurd to hope that a liberal Democrat will be more friendly to our rights.  By definition, such a person is dedicated to the destruction of liberty. 

He said that he supported the Supreme Court ruling on the subject, and that he supports giving a trial even to the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

In Contrast, McCain called the new ruling one of the worst decisions in the history of the court. That says to me that he doesn't believe every person accused of a crime should be tried and proven guilty-he supports the Bush system.

My firearms rights are important, and I can't advocate for them if I get tossed in prison and labelled whatever word the administration decides will deprive me of any right to counsel, right to trial, or right to not be tortured. 

[Perd Hapley]

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights. 

[Manedwolf]

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights. 

Isn't it nice to know that we have people voting on what politicians say they'll do, instead of what their voting record shows they have done and will do?

[De Selby]

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights. 

Okay, the question was: What has Obama promised to do to restore rights taken away by the Bush administration?

The answer was: Give trials to terrorism suspects, including Osama Bin Laden.  Everyone gets tried for their crimes.

I thought that was clear in my response, so since it apparently wasn't, I signposted it for you.

Now, as for how a liberal democrat will help the situation:

Again, I was confining my comments to the importance of the right of individuals to have guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt before being punished.  That is a hugely important freedom, because otherwise, the government can jail anyone it chooses by simply applying a label and then denying that person the means to contest the detention.  

So by restoring the right and getting America back on the track of having trials, and not letting the executive jail people at will without proving anything to anyone, our human rights are protected.  Doesn't matter who does it-liberal, conservative, or otherwise.

But in this election, McCain says he wants to do the opposite-continue secret detentions without trial.  So that's the basis of my comment here.  Obama says he wants to try every suspect and prove guilt before punishing, McCain says that's a freedom that's too dangerous for America.

[Manedwolf]

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights. 

Okay, the question was: What has Obama promised to do to restore rights taken away by the Bush administration?

The answer was: Give trials to terrorism suspects, including Osama Bin Laden.  Everyone gets tried for their crimes.

I thought that was clear in my response, so since it apparently wasn't, I signposted it for you.

Now, as for how a liberal democrat will help the situation:

Again, I was confining my comments to the importance of the right of individuals to have guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt before being punished.  That is a hugely important freedom, because otherwise, the government can jail anyone it chooses by simply applying a label and then denying that person the means to contest the detention.   

So by restoring the right and getting America back on the track of having trials, and not letting the executive jail people at will without proving anything to anyone, our human rights are protected.  Doesn't matter who does it-liberal, conservative, or otherwise.

But in this election, McCain says he wants to do the opposite-continue secret detentions without trial.  So that's the basis of my comment here.  Obama says he wants to try every suspect and prove guilt before punishing, McCain says that's a freedom that's too dangerous for America.

In other words, you haven't even looked at Obama's voting record at all, you're going by a politician's promises.

[De Selby]

Thank you for failing to answer the question, or to explain why voting for a liberal Democrat will help the situation, given the fact of the liberal Democrats' campaign to lay waste the very foundation of human rights. 

Okay, the question was: What has Obama promised to do to restore rights taken away by the Bush administration?

The answer was: Give trials to terrorism suspects, including Osama Bin Laden.  Everyone gets tried for their crimes.

I thought that was clear in my response, so since it apparently wasn't, I signposted it for you.

Now, as for how a liberal democrat will help the situation:

Again, I was confining my comments to the importance of the right of individuals to have guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt before being punished.  That is a hugely important freedom, because otherwise, the government can jail anyone it chooses by simply applying a label and then denying that person the means to contest the detention.   

So by restoring the right and getting America back on the track of having trials, and not letting the executive jail people at will without proving anything to anyone, our human rights are protected.  Doesn't matter who does it-liberal, conservative, or otherwise.

But in this election, McCain says he wants to do the opposite-continue secret detentions without trial.  So that's the basis of my comment here.  Obama says he wants to try every suspect and prove guilt before punishing, McCain says that's a freedom that's too dangerous for America.

In other words, you haven't even looked at Obama's voting record at all, you're going by a politician's promises.

No, I'm looking at his record and at his statements-but more importantly at McCain's as well.

I don't think there's any legitimate dispute about the positions of the candidates on this one: Obama is anti-secret detention without trial, McCain is not.  Certainly for other issues the dividing line is not so clear, but on this one there's just no rational way to argue it. 

I'm open to seeing some evidence that Obama supports the Guantanamo system, though.  Maybe you know some secrets the rest of us don't-please share, if that's the case.

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, Maned, I was asking for what Obama had promised to do.  As in, what specific legislation or policy has he put forth?  And I guess promising to try OBL is a policy, implying that others will be tried as well.  Now, if trying OBL is a good thing for you, I guess that's something.  Completely nonsensical, but something.  Like any sane person, I want him interrogated by any useful means at our disposal, then put down.  If you think that's a violation of rights, well, it must be nice in your fairy tale world. 

[Manedwolf]

Actually, Maned, I was asking for what Obama had promised to do.  As in, what specific legislation or policy has he put forth?  And I guess promising to try OBL is a policy, implying that others will be tried as well.  Now, if trying OBL is a good thing for you, I guess that's something.  Completely nonsensical, but something.  Like any sane person, I want him interrogated by any useful means at our disposal, then put down.  If you think that's a violation of rights, well, it must be nice in your fairy tale world. 

Silly, he doesn't put forth specific policies, just feelgood platitudes and soundbite solutions.

And the gullible fall for it.

[De Selby]

fistful,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401046.html

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060927-floor_statement_7/

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/lawyers_for_git.html


The reason we need to be so serious about this right is that in difficult times, some people, like you, clamor to abolish it-and in the process grant the government carte blanche to make people disappear by simply applying a label.

The real fairy tale is that governments are so honest that you can trust them to only imprison bad people, and that they'll only use the unlimited power to imprison responsibly.

I also don't believe in instutionalized savagery, and torture is savagery.  It's a death penalty offense for a reason.  McCain and Obama have both come out against torture though, but I'm sure if McCain is changing his opinion on that yet.

[De Selby]

Actually, Maned, I was asking for what Obama had promised to do.  As in, what specific legislation or policy has he put forth?  And I guess promising to try OBL is a policy, implying that others will be tried as well.  Now, if trying OBL is a good thing for you, I guess that's something.  Completely nonsensical, but something.  Like any sane person, I want him interrogated by any useful means at our disposal, then put down.  If you think that's a violation of rights, well, it must be nice in your fairy tale world. 

Silly, he doesn't put forth specific policies, just feelgood platitudes and soundbite solutions.

And the gullible fall for it.

There are two specific policies:

1. Providing for habeas corpus to all detainees

and

2. Closing Guantanamo, so as to deprive the government of its legal fiction that there is a land beyond the reach of the law.

Edit: Another article with specific votes and statements by McCain and Obama:

http://www.ksfy.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=20575144

[grampster]

McCain's election would be better for our country for several important reason if the congress remains D.

There would be gridlock.  The D's would never stand for him to push further to the right and he'd veto most leftist/socialist agendi. With Obama, we'd be celebrating Bastile Day.  A McCain presidency and a D congress means nothing governmental happens for 4 years.  In America that is a good thing.

McCain's federal judges would be centrists at the worst.  Obama's picks would be marxist.

With McCain you'd get to keep and carry.  With Obama you'd have to hide and bury.

A long term energy program that is at least sane and maybe a tad progressive would result with McCain.  I think we'd have progress because Americans are fed up with the obstructionists and would demand it.  With Obama we'd be walking everywhere and eating the furniture we didn't burn to keep warm in the winter.  The D's don't give a rats ass if you freeze or can afford to drive your car.  They want you to buy a windmill and grow your own organic food.

I could go on, but what's the point?