Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[planet planet]

You can't paint liberals with a broad brush any more than you can conservatives. It's much more complex than that - I categorize myself as neither and frankly don't know which side some of my views fall on and could care less.

But label away if you must, although doing so detracts from getting to the meat of most issues, IMHO.

You can label yourself, I consider myself a social liberal and fiscal moderate. It's when you detract the opposite side based on their label when nothing positive comes out of it as far as defending negative stereotypes rather than healthy political talk, which seldom exists but potentially can.

But therein lies the rub, the Republicans claim they are the party of fiscal conservatism and the last eight years shows they are not.

[Radbird]

But therein lies the rub, the Republicans claim they are the party of fiscal conservatism and the last eight years shows they are not.

And they claim to want less government, but then want government to legislate about social issues.

[Freed Roger]

I'm against pumping more money into the Dept of Ed.

I'm against most forms of welfare (particularly making those who work hard pay for those who don't). Opportunities are there for almost anyone that wants it.

Giving criminals a second chance? We're talking about the death penalty. Do you mean a second chance to kill? Let's kill babies but let the worst of the worst have "a second chance"? Nah. Not my style.

With all of the "problems" Obama wants to "fix", where's that money coming from? Just the rich? I doubt it. And if so, that's stupid, too.

Obama favors gun manufactures being sued. McCain doesn't. That's part of the gun control problem for me, but this is a very small issue on my list.

Now I finally get it - you are afraid of the "BoogieMan."

Guns -welfare programs, death penalty...

Reagan started the GOP down this path of stereotyping people of color as lazy welfare queens that are the root of most of our domestic problems in the US. And you and many others buy into it lock stock and gun barrel.

I share your concern about wasteful spending and fake idealism.. but Your worries about welfare spending are ridiculous considering the wasted money in Iraq. It dwarfs any social spending. Just the interest on it dwarfs social spending. You know what else dwarfs social spending- its corporate bailouts. Or defense spending contracts. I bet there are more millionaires made via corporate welfare than welfare to the boogie man.

capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich.

[UK]

You can't paint liberals with a broad brush any more than you can conservatives. It's much more complex than that - I categorize myself as neither and frankly don't know which side some of my views fall on and could care less.

But label away if you must, although doing so detracts from getting to the meat of most issues, IMHO.

You can label yourself, I consider myself a social liberal and fiscal moderate. It's when you detract the opposite side based on their label when nothing positive comes out of it as far as defending negative stereotypes rather than healthy political talk, which seldom exists but potentially can.

But therein lies the rub, the Republicans claim they are the party of fiscal conservatism and the last eight years shows they are not.

Sure, they also claim they are small government too but it hasn't happened either.

Voters for either party can be mistaken and what they want to see happen. With conservatives & the true conservative ideas (small gov't, lower taxes, reduced gov't waste), will vote based on those ideals despite the unlikely nature of that b/c the odds of that are even more unlikely with Obama in charge.

If I felt the right practiced those ideals mentioned above as well as detacting their social views from evangelical base, I would probably lean right. IMO, the evangelical base of this country is socially retarding the development of this country from that social standpoint.

[planet planet]

You can't paint liberals with a broad brush any more than you can conservatives. It's much more complex than that - I categorize myself as neither and frankly don't know which side some of my views fall on and could care less.

But label away if you must, although doing so detracts from getting to the meat of most issues, IMHO.

You can label yourself, I consider myself a social liberal and fiscal moderate. It's when you detract the opposite side based on their label when nothing positive comes out of it as far as defending negative stereotypes rather than healthy political talk, which seldom exists but potentially can.

But therein lies the rub, the Republicans claim they are the party of fiscal conservatism and the last eight years shows they are not.

Sure, they also claim they are small government too but it hasn't happened either.

Voters for either party can be mistaken and what they want to see happen. With conservatives & the true conservative ideas (small gov't, lower taxes, reduced gov't waste), will vote based on those ideals despite the unlikely nature of that b/c the odds of that are even more unlikely with Obama in charge.

If I felt the right practiced those ideals mentioned above as well as detacting their social views from evangelical base, I would probably lean right. IMO, the evangelical base of this country is socially retarding the development of this country from that social standpoint.

I just read an article in The Ecomomist about the courting of the evangelical base in the US. They said it's 23%. Of course, they didn't think Obama had a chance of winning this vote, politically if he could make a dent in it, it could win him the election. This country has a puritanical heritage we don't share with our Western European brethren. I'd rather they just ignore it, rather than court it, but I know that's impractical.

Edit: And I don't have a problem with anyone's deeply held religious beliefs. I just think it has no place in politics or science, for that matter.

Edit #2: This same issue of The Economist's lead article was stem cells' connection to cancer.

[UK]

I probably have opposite views as BW23, I have no problem with BW23 labeling themselves whatever they want. Constructive disagreements can still deemed possible regardless of differences, but it would go downhill quickly if it becomes attacking rather than discussing and that usually begins with negative labels towards the other.

[UK]

You can't paint liberals with a broad brush any more than you can conservatives. It's much more complex than that - I categorize myself as neither and frankly don't know which side some of my views fall on and could care less.

But label away if you must, although doing so detracts from getting to the meat of most issues, IMHO.

You can label yourself, I consider myself a social liberal and fiscal moderate. It's when you detract the opposite side based on their label when nothing positive comes out of it as far as defending negative stereotypes rather than healthy political talk, which seldom exists but potentially can.

But therein lies the rub, the Republicans claim they are the party of fiscal conservatism and the last eight years shows they are not.

Sure, they also claim they are small government too but it hasn't happened either.

Voters for either party can be mistaken and what they want to see happen. With conservatives & the true conservative ideas (small gov't, lower taxes, reduced gov't waste), will vote based on those ideals despite the unlikely nature of that b/c the odds of that are even more unlikely with Obama in charge.

If I felt the right practiced those ideals mentioned above as well as detacting their social views from evangelical base, I would probably lean right. IMO, the evangelical base of this country is socially retarding the development of this country from that social standpoint.

I just read an article in The Ecomomist about the courting of the evangelical base in the US. They said it's 23%. Of course, they didn't think Obama had a chance of winning this vote, politically if he could make a dent in it, it could win him the election. This country has a puritanical heritage we don't share with our Western European brethren. I'd rather they just ignore it, rather than court it, but I know that's impractical.

Agreed.

Obama has allocated/wasted too many resources on red states as it is which has likely hurt him in the swing states. Going after the evangelicals is a waste.

It's amazing to see the evangelical base have such a stronghold on our social views.

[Richie Allen]

Sep 9, 2008 ... "This campaign is not about issues. . . it's about personality."-- Rick Davis, McCain campaign chief advisor

I have a real tough time imagining that McCain beats Obama on "personality". But I suppose it's his only chance.

[Hudler]

You can't paint liberals with a broad brush any more than you can conservatives. It's much more complex than that - I categorize myself as neither and frankly don't know which side some of my views fall on and could care less.

But label away if you must, although doing so detracts from getting to the meat of most issues, IMHO.

You can label yourself, I consider myself a social liberal and fiscal moderate. It's when you detract the opposite side based on their label when nothing positive comes out of it as far as defending negative stereotypes rather than healthy political talk, which seldom exists but potentially can.

But therein lies the rub, the Republicans claim they are the party of fiscal conservatism and the last eight years shows they are not.

Sure, they also claim they are small government too but it hasn't happened either.

Voters for either party can be mistaken and what they want to see happen. With conservatives & the true conservative ideas (small gov't, lower taxes, reduced gov't waste), will vote based on those ideals despite the unlikely nature of that b/c the odds of that are even more unlikely with Obama in charge.

If I felt the right practiced those ideals mentioned above as well as detacting their social views from evangelical base, I would probably lean right. IMO, the evangelical base of this country is socially retarding the development of this country from that social standpoint.

I just read an article in The Ecomomist about the courting of the evangelical base in the US. They said it's 23%. Of course, they didn't think Obama had a chance of winning this vote, politically if he could make a dent in it, it could win him the election. This country has a puritanical heritage we don't share with our Western European brethren. I'd rather they just ignore it, rather than court it, but I know that's impractical.

Agreed.

Obama has allocated/wasted too many resources on red states as it is which has likely hurt him in the swing states. Going after the evangelicals is a waste.

It's amazing to see the evangelical base have such a stronghold on our social views.

It's scary as hell is what it is.

Violent street gangs are scary,radical muslims trying to blow everyone up is scary,skinheads wanting everyone not like them to die are scary,crack cocaine and heroin is scary,having psychos around the world trying to get nukes is scary.....

Having evangelical christians being involved in government,no matter how misguided they are,is no more than an annoyance.

[Richie Allen]

But therein lies the rub, the Republicans claim they are the party of fiscal conservatism and the last eight years shows they are not.

You forgot the twenty in front of your eight.