Barack Obama just called me.

[Tossica]

I think he doesn't wear it because he doesn't love America!

[Gypsiyee]

Lyion, I'm very confused as to who you're supporting this year.. you've yet to come out and say it, I think

This is just from last month:

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but his point about the Iranian speedboats around the Navy Destroyer made me lolzer, because it's so true.

I'm weighing voting for Paul in the primary just because he is the only one who isn't pro Status Quo. I disagree with some of his positions, but really I disagree with some of all the candidates positions.

I need to weigh that versus voting for Obama here in Ohio. Too bad that race will probably be over before the primary here. Idiotic election setup that it is.

You hated Romney, I've not seen you say anything supportive about McCain or Huckabee, you've stated very plainly that you didn't like Hillary, though all the sudden recently you said you'd rather her than Obama.. make up your mind, man - with all this bouncing around I would've been sure Romney was your man ><

[Phlegm]

Obama addresses the LGBT(lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders).

"I'm running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It's wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.

Equality is a moral imperative. That's why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who's willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that's what I've done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.

Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike."

[Lyion]

Lyion, I'm very confused as to who you're supporting this year.. you've yet to come out and say it, I think

You hated Romney, I've not seen you say anything supportive about McCain or Huckabee, you've stated very plainly that you didn't like Hillary, though all the sudden recently you said you'd rather her than Obama.. make up your mind, man - with all this bouncing around I would've been sure Romney was your man ><

Short answer: Mccain.

Long answer...

/incoming book.. apologies ahead of time....

I don't *like* any of them. They are politicians who are selling a truckload of BS. However, under the BS I try and evaluate them based on their records and what they have stood for. I also have to weigh things under what change will occur that I can personally support. I also understand that regardless of who is elected, the other party in 4 years will declare it was horrible, bad, terrible, and they need to be elected to fix everything before it is too late. It's all rubbish.

As for the people:

I dislike Huckabee and Romney more on the GOP side due to their records. Huckabee is good socially, but bad economically. Romney is bad socially, but good economically. This was not a banner year for the GOP. They had weak candidates and the primaries went to the safe one, Mccain.

Mccain: A good man with great foreign affairs knowledge, but there are issues I disagree with him on. I don't like most of the legislation he has authored due to it being over regulating. I also don't like putting a 72 year old man who has been through the fire into the oval office in a very trying and dangerous time.Also, I don't feel he gets the economic issues, and won't address the valid concerns in that arena.

Obama: I think he gets it economically, and he has the potential to be a moderate and do a lot of good. However, I feel he lacks the experience and could be a huge liability trying to lead us in foreign affairs. I also don't like someone who has been mentored by a man who thinks Louis Farrakhan is great and who has done wonders for America. Obama just arrived in the Senate and is mostly clueless about foreign affairs. His rise makes me curious as his opponent is vastly and hugely more qualified, better vetted, and more electable despite the rhetoric. Ironically, Obama is just like W in 2000. Strong domestically, who had a great track record in his own state, but wasn't/isn't ready for the crisis we encountered.

Clinton: I think she brings the most to the table. She has the best knowledge of the economy, and also brings both strength and compassion to the table for foreign affairs. I think her biggest weakness is she really has a tough time working across the isle, and also she is too chained to insiders and the Clinton machine. Also, for someone who claims to be ready on day 1, she has blown a gigantic lead in the primaries and run as inept a campaign as I can ever remember. She should have been a slam dunk against Obama, but her organization and leadership were weak and she was out campaigned and essentially outworked.

[Gypsiyee]

that wasn't that long of a book

thanks

[Narrock]

Gypsiyee said:

That said though, I'm a little sad you just gave Mindia one little post to quote and paste, when his dislike wasn't based on any of those things and he had no backing for his dislike other than because the GOP told me to.

C'mon Gyps... that was below the belt. The GOP doesn't tell me how to think, or what to think about any particular candidate. I've been pissed off at the GOP for a couple years now, because they are no longer "conservative" like they used to be. If you want to blindly hop aboard the Barry Hussein Obama express bandwagon because you fell for the media hype, that's your business. But don't slam those of use who have an intense disdain for Hussein because we don't like what he stands for. You really are turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the ills of this Obama character.

[Arlos]

I think the issue, Mindia, is that there is a difference between disliking him for his political positions, and some of what you've been up to here. Things like slamming him for appearing in traditional Somali garb when he was on a goodwill tour there, keeping calling him Hussein in an attempt to make it appear he's related to terrorists (or at least muslims), etc. etc. etc.

I'm quite sure you'd disagree with him over things like abortions, and similar social issues which are important to you. That's perfectly OK, as you know quite well, I disagree with you on those issues too.

But to attack him for made-up issues, especially when they aren't really issues at all (or are flat-out lies in some cases, like the people claiming he was sworn in to the senate with a Koran, etc.).... That's where it bothers me.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

Mindia, it wasn't a slam at you - you have yet to cite any reason to dislike him other than the general statements that the media has made about him.

Not an ounce of my support can be attributed to media hype - if that was the case, I certainly wouldn't be a Ron Paul fan. I'm very anti-media persuasion because I feel it has way too much impact on how people vote and it's a bad thing for democracy. I'm for researching candidates before passing judgment, and I don't think I've ever represented myself otherwise.

I simply asked the whys, you never answered until after Minrott did except to take offense to what I said, and fair enough that you did but you still haven't answered why you're so against him other than your blatant desire to draw focus to his middle name etc - and before you start with the "Well it IS his middle name" then I suggest you start saying John Sydney McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Willard Mitt Romney, Michael Dale Huckabee and the like. You're falling in the trap of a stereotypical belief based on a name rather than the issues, and if you disagree with him on the issues fine - but have enough respect to express what you don't like about him aside from oh I don't trust him because he doesn't love this country, which is definitely something that could be a direct quote from media influence.

[Martrae]

Rodham isn't her middle name...it's her maiden name.

[Narrock]

Mindia, it wasn't a slam at you - you have yet to cite any reason to dislike him other than the general statements that the media has made about him.

Not an ounce of my support can be attributed to media hype - if that was the case, I certainly wouldn't be a Ron Paul fan. I'm very anti-media persuasion because I feel it has way too much impact on how people vote and it's a bad thing for democracy. I'm for researching candidates before passing judgment, and I don't think I've ever represented myself otherwise.

I simply asked the whys, you never answered until after Minrott did except to take offense to what I said, and fair enough that you did but you still haven't answered why you're so against him other than your blatant desire to draw focus to his middle name etc - and before you start with the "Well it IS his middle name" then I suggest you start saying John Sydney McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Willard Mitt Romney, Michael Dale Huckabee and the like. You're falling in the trap of a stereotypical belief based on a name rather than the issues, and if you disagree with him on the issues fine - but have enough respect to express what you don't like about him aside from oh I don't trust him because he doesn't love this country, which is definitely something that could be a direct quote from media influence.

Ok fair enough. I don't like Obama, and distrust him for several reasons, none of which are because of his race. I would vote for a black candidate if he was conservative... someone like Chief Justice Clarence Thomas, or some other black conservative figurehead. I don't trust Muslims in general. Their "religion of peace" has been proven over and over again to go counter to the peaceful moniker they so affectionately embrace. Obama himself is also WAY too liberal for me. Despite what he claims he will do, if he gets elected, you can bet your bottom dollar that your taxes WILL go UP, there will be MORE government involvement in your life, terrorism will be on the uprise again, and the illegal immigration issue will most likely remain stagnant with no advances towards hindering illegal immigration. Also, Obama's church and his pastor have their allegiance to Africa, instead of America. Do you really want a president with this kind of background and baggage? I sure as hell don't.

This whole presidential candidate lineup (on both sides of the aisle) has been the most disappointing and frustrating lineup I think I've EVER seen. The republicans have all but abandoned conservatism, even fiscal conservatism. Bush has been selling us down the river and spending like a madman for several years now. I don't like McCain and never have. You all know how I feel about the clintons, who are without question, some of the most morally and ethically bankrupt people in America. Millions of Americans feel the same way. So here comes Obama, the savior who's going to turn it all around and get America moving in the right direction again, right? WRONG. Pay careful attention to Obama, even the negative things about him. Read about him and his allegiance. Look at the long term detrimental effects his presidency and policy IS going to have on America. DON'T turn a blind eye to it. Obama is NOT the president we need. Don't let his charisma hypnotize you.

[Lueyen]

I feel his explanation is merely a byproduct of the truth that he wishes to differentiate himself from the GOP, and merely a political ploy to appeal to the DNC base which by and large see patriotism and unity in a different light.

His explanation is framed in a larger political context. The lapel pin represents the GOP <wrongly>, but there it is. He cannot be allied to them in this 'war' that the DNC is waging.

I have many issues with Obama, but the lapel pin one to me is a molehill compared to the real mountains.

To be sure I disagree with his stance on most issues, but there is a different level for me. I can disagree with someone and still think they would do a decent job in a political office. Considering the likely GOP candidate, it would even be reasonable for me to prefer a Democrat. I disagree with a lot of the DNC platform, but I also disagree with a lot of what McCain stands for. If I look at it as purely a political maneuver, then he is acquiescing to those who view America not as something to be proud of, but as something to be ashamed off. With the comment his wife made recently it's pretty clear that she feels that way. Her comment was that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of this country (referencing her husbands candidacy). Quite frankly if you can't find can't find anything about this country to be proud of for the last 32 years or so then you are living in the wrong country. I think it's safe to assume that he and his wife view things in at least a similar fashion. What it all amounts to is character carries weight with me, in tandem with stances on issues. Character is the reason I reject Huckabee, even if his stances on many issues I might find perfectly acceptable. Both Obama and Huckabee in my opinion love the United States for what they think it should be, and not for what it is. I think Huckabee would fail to safeguard liberty and justice for all, I think Obama would weaken this country, and take us further down a path of a nanny state. In both cases I think the underlying reasons for their ideas are not based on what is supposed to be, but on what they want it to be. I don't want government to take care of my every need from birth to death, I want it to protect the framework that allows me to do so for myself without impedance, and I want that for every single American.

[brinstar]

Ok fair enough. I don't like Obama, and distrust him for several reasons, none of which are because of his race. I would vote for a black candidate if he was conservative... someone like Chief Justice Clarence Thomas, or some other black conservative figurehead. I don't trust Muslims in general. Their "religion of peace" has been proven over and over again to go counter to the peaceful moniker they so affectionately embrace. Obama himself is also WAY too liberal for me. Despite what he claims he will do, if he gets elected, you can bet your bottom dollar that your taxes WILL go UP, there will be MORE government involvement in your life, terrorism will be on the uprise again, and the illegal immigration issue will most likely remain stagnant with no advances towards hindering illegal immigration. Also, Obama's church and his pastor have their allegiance to Africa, instead of America. Do you really want a president with this kind of background and baggage? I sure as hell don't.

This whole presidential candidate lineup (on both sides of the aisle) has been the most disappointing and frustrating lineup I think I've EVER seen. The republicans have all but abandoned conservatism, even fiscal conservatism. Bush has been selling us down the river and spending like a madman for several years now. I don't like McCain and never have. You all know how I feel about the clintons, who are without question, some of the most morally and ethically bankrupt people in America. Millions of Americans feel the same way. So here comes Obama, the savior who's going to turn it all around and get America moving in the right direction again, right? WRONG. Pay careful attention to Obama, even the negative things about him. Read about him and his allegiance. Look at the long term detrimental effects his presidency and policy IS going to have on America. DON'T turn a blind eye to it. Obama is NOT the president we need. Don't let his charisma hypnotize you.

k i read that twice and still haven't seen you give any concrete examples for why you dislike obama so much

[Arlos]

Considering Obama is not now, nor has he ever been a muslim.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

I don't trust Muslims in general. Their "religion of peace" has been proven over and over again to go counter to the peaceful moniker they so affectionately embrace.

Though I didn't see any specifics aside from his church (which is semi-propaganda based) - this statement kind of discredits the rest of the post. He's not a muslim, and has never been a muslim. That's completely fabricated information that was spread by Clinton in order to help her campaign, and assumed by a lot of neo-con supporters who simply aren't comfortable with his name.

He's never said he won't raise taxes - he's in fact said he will, but it needs to be done for things like his healthcare plan. I have a good job, and my benefits are garbage. One little doctors visit and I paid 71 bucks for absolutely nothing, basically. I can get better than that from just going up to the doc in the box and not using my insurance. If I have to pay higher taxes to ensure that I don't risk my health when I try to better myself with a higher paying job, I'm fine with that. I don't think anyone should have to settle for a mediocre job just because the benefits are great - my mom's had to do that for years because she's got all sorts of physical problems from working so hard all her life, but her pay sucks. I'm 24 and I make 1 1/2 times as much as she does between two jobs - it's despicable to me that she has to stay with a company who pays her absolute crap and doesn't reward her work ethic just so that she doesn't risk not being able to afford going to the doctor anymore. I think more people are in a similar situation to that than not, and if higher taxes diminish that, I'm all for it.

That's of course only one of the issues, but in my eyes it's a very important one - for me, the most important ranking issues right now are Iraq above all else (this one is huge fiscally as well, I believe), then healthcare, then immigration reform (not necessarily the border issue, I mean reforming the entire system which is complete and utter crap.) I just can't see how raising taxes a fraction for the greater good is worse than tax cuts for the rich while spending us into oblivion on an undeclared war. I'd certainly rather my tax money go to healthcare and education which everyone needs.

Obama is a fantastic speaker, but that's not why I support him. Since it looks like McCain will win the republican race, Obama most closely mirrors my views. I would have a more difficult decision if Paul won the republican nomination and Obama won the democratic nomination because then I would have to more closely examine and prioritize the importance of my stances since they're one way or the other between those two, but with the race looking how it is, there's simply no way my vote would go to anyone but Obama.

[Lyion]

To be sure I disagree with his stance on most issues, but there is a different level for me. I can disagree with someone and still think they would do a decent job in a political office. Considering the likely GOP candidate, it would even be reasonable for me to prefer a Democrat.

I have friends who say the same thing, but is this true given the likely en masse SCOTUS retirements, and the fact of who a Mccain would appoint vs a Democrat?

I disagree with a lot of the DNC platform, but I also disagree with a lot of what McCain stands for. If I look at it as purely a political maneuver, then he is acquiescing to those who view America not as something to be proud of, but as something to be ashamed off.

What do you disagree with that Mccain stands for?

Do you disagree with Mccain's actual views, or the fact he often times reaches across the isle and enacts legislation that he thinks is good. I disagree with some of his legislation but it's pretty easy to see the point behind Mccain-Feingold and the reasoning behind disallowing fatcats to purchase elections. Granted, it just created 527s and a host of other issues, and was debatably unconstitutional but that is a court issue.

Ironically, most people dislike Mccain because he isn't partisan enough. Fortunately, I think when Obama hits the general election with his uniter tone, and is shone to be a 100% DNC shill without a single stand against the party line and no chance of being a unifier he'll get hurt by the campagin, and the exact opposite will be true for Mccain who IS an actual independent, and not a shill for the GOP.

With the comment his wife made recently it's pretty clear that she feels that way. Her comment was that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of this country (referencing her husbands candidacy). Quite frankly if you can't find can't find anything about this country to be proud of for the last 32 years or so then you are living in the wrong country. I think it's safe to assume that he and his wife view things in at least a similar fashion. What it all amounts to is character carries weight with me, in tandem with stances on issues.

I disagree here, and I feel his wife was solely showing her disgust at the political process and the fact it's a mudslinging contest. Granted, she won't say anything about her parties own leader, Howard Dean, digging in the dirt and making personal attacks, but her quote, when viewed in it's entirety is pretty easy to be seen as solely about the political process.

Character is the reason I reject Huckabee, even if his stances on many issues I might find perfectly acceptable. Both Obama and Huckabee in my opinion love the United States for what they think it should be, and not for what it is. I think Huckabee would fail to safeguard liberty and justice for all, I think Obama would weaken this country, and take us further down a path of a nanny state. In both cases I think the underlying reasons for their ideas are not based on what is supposed to be, but on what they want it to be. I don't want government to take care of my every need from birth to death, I want it to protect the framework that allows me to do so for myself without impedance, and I want that for every single American.

What you are saying is you dislike populism which is understandable. Most conservatives do, but at the same time populism is here to stay in one form or another and some measure of it is wise. Elections, after all, are about getting elected.

The character point and Romney support is where you and others lose me. I feel Huckabee is liberal in his economic policies but his character and message are far greater than a Romney who has flipped positions multiple times and proven himself to be a waffler. Character is sticking to ones guns when your points are adverserial. Mccain has it. Romney does not, and never has.

I agree with a lot of your other points. I'm a Federalist and believe that each state should control its own fate and laws, where they do not impact with the constitution. This will be hard to do with a big government DNC congress in session. I think preventing them from creating a nanny state will be difficult, but there are things we need to do to ensure our safety. I dislike a lot of what Mccain offers, but I'm also a pragmatist, and if I can at a minimum get partial birth abortion or third trimester abortion overturned, then I'll feel our country has made progress away from the culture of death, which is my personal largest issue.

[Minrott]

I don't trust Muslims in general. Their "religion of peace" has been proven over and over again to go counter to the peaceful moniker they so affectionately embrace.

Snipped.

How exactly do you go from supporting Ron Paul, who woud like to: Abolish the IRS, abolish the Fed, reduce federal government size and spending, reduce spending on foreign aid, increase states rights, and deal with the Constitution as if it were the only law that the .gov needs to operate by; to Obama, who would like to: raise taxes by increasing the responsibility of the federal government for things now controlled by states, increase taxes by mandating a single payer or socialized medical program, reduce individual rights by increasing federal power over states, and ruin the economy by playing Robin Hood?



Then, you go on to insinuate that employer paid medical benefits should be independent of your monetary compensation? Your mom doesn't have to stay at her job. Last I checked, people could seek employment wherever they desire. Nothing forces her to stay, just like no one forces you to take the job you have even though the benefits aren't great. It's entirely under your control to obtain a job with better benefits. There is nothing stopping anyone from finding that job other than themselves. While it may sound peachy to have a single payer system, in which we all receive the same coverage, don't think for a second that a drastic change like that won't effect your current net income.

[Naethyn]

How exactly do you go from supporting Ron Paul, who woud like to: Abolish the IRS, abolish the Fed, reduce federal government size and spending, reduce spending on foreign aid, increase states rights, and deal with the Constitution as if it were the only law that the .gov needs to operate by; to Obama, who would like to: raise taxes by increasing the responsibility of the federal government for things now controlled by states, increase taxes by mandating a single payer or socialized medical program, reduce individual rights by increasing federal power over states, and ruin the economy by playing Robin Hood?

People seem to argue over reason X why we shouldn't vote for candidate A. Or we should vote for candidate B because of reason Y.

If I have a choice between candidate A who is inline with every view I have, but wants to stay in the Iraq war and candidate B who is out of view with everything I believe, but also wants immediate Iraq withdrawal, I will vote for candidate B every single time.

Iraq towers over every single other issue on the table.

That's how.

[Minrott]

I solicited your position previously, and have since discounted your opinions based on it.

[Lueyen]

What do you disagree with that Mccain stands for?

Do you disagree with Mccain's actual views, or the fact he often times reaches across the isle and enacts legislation that he thinks is good.

I don't have a problem with working on things in a bi-partisan manner in many areas, as long as you don't compromise your espoused values and beliefs in doing so. I do appreciate McCain in this to an extent, but I feel he takes it to far at times. I don't trust him on illegal immigration, abortion, and taxes. Illegal immigration is probably where I take the strongest issue with him, and he was at the forefront of the recycled failed attempt of the Regan era to deal with the issue. On abortion it's not his voting record, but some of the things he's said regarding the issue, most notably characterizing it as necessary... which by extension if one views it as murder would be akin to a "necessary evil". On taxes, not once but twice he opposed tax cuts but later called for their extension citing that he wanted them accompanied by something else (but only after the fact).

McCain-Fiengold is not a core issue to me as it is with many who dislike McCain. I classify this as a "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" blunder, a well intentioned mistake if you will.

[Gypsiyee]

I don't trust Muslims in general. Their "religion of peace" has been proven over and over again to go counter to the peaceful moniker they so affectionately embrace.

Snipped.

How exactly do you go from supporting Ron Paul, who woud like to: Abolish the IRS, abolish the Fed, reduce federal government size and spending, reduce spending on foreign aid, increase states rights, and deal with the Constitution as if it were the only law that the .gov needs to operate by; to Obama, who would like to: raise taxes by increasing the responsibility of the federal government for things now controlled by states, increase taxes by mandating a single payer or socialized medical program, reduce individual rights by increasing federal power over states, and ruin the economy by playing Robin Hood?



Then, you go on to insinuate that employer paid medical benefits should be independent of your monetary compensation? Your mom doesn't have to stay at her job. Last I checked, people could seek employment wherever they desire. Nothing forces her to stay, just like no one forces you to take the job you have even though the benefits aren't great. It's entirely under your control to obtain a job with better benefits. There is nothing stopping anyone from finding that job other than themselves. While it may sound peachy to have a single payer system, in which we all receive the same coverage, don't think for a second that a drastic change like that won't effect your current net income.

I've mentioned quite a few times how one can support both Paul and Obama; in fact, I did so in this very thread, so I'll go ahead and re-quote myself:

Quote:
I can't fathom how a person's support goes from Ron Paul, to Barack Obama

I'll answer this question because I fall in this category (and I think I've answered this before at some point as well.)

I like them both very much, and would be equally happy with either of them as president. Why? It's due to a very simple reason - I'm on one side of the fence or the other in almost every issue. Basically, I'm split literally in half with my beliefs. This is what I detest about party affiliation - I don't think I should have to side with one or the other, because I don't fully agree with either side. This is the same with just about everything in my life, I'm just not a one or the other person.. generally for me the good lies somewhere in between with a compromise of both sides.

What I disagree with Paul on, I agree with Obama on, and vice versa. I think it's very much like a venn diagram - they meet in the middle on issues that are very important to me, and with all of the others they fall on one side or the other and are pretty much equal.

I don't know about the other people who fall into this category of liking them both, but I would imagine it's a result of the same type of scenario.

As far as my mom not having to stay at her job, you go ahead and tell me how, exactly, she's going to survive her medical bills with pre-existing conditions out the wazoo just to get a couple extra thousand a year. She's got fibromyalgia, severe arthritis, carpal tunnel, and epstein barr just for starters. She gets cortizone shots something like once a month, in addition to necessary regular chiropractor visits. She goes to some form of doctor at least 3 times a month, and has medications she has to take for the conditions. If you think any private insurance company is going to cover her at an affordable rate, with all due respect, you're out of your mind.

Why would she give up great benefits that she's had for years just to get a better paying job when she's going to have to pay the difference, and then some, to pay her medical expenses? Of course she has the choice to leave, it just fiscally and medically makes absolutely no sense. With any job you take the good with the bad - she gets underpaid, but she deals with it because anywhere else and she'd be screwed medically.

I'm on the other end - yes, I get paid very well for what I do, but my benefits are total crap. I'm young and healthy, so right now I can generally forego the doctor visits; the extra money is more important to me.

I don't understand why anyone feels it should be necessary to choose good health over a good job and vice versa; you should be able to have both without paying out the nose to get it. Quality of living and overall health just aren't something I personally feel a person should have to prioritize between.

[Naethyn]

I solicited your position previously, and have since discounted your opinions based on it.

So who would you choose between Mccain, Obama, and Billary?

[Evermore]

I solicited your position previously, and have since discounted your opinions based on it.

So who would you choose between Mccain, Obama, and Billary?

Kodos.

[Minrott]

I solicited your position previously, and have since discounted your opinions based on it.

So who would you choose between Mccain, Obama, and Billary?

Kthulu.

As I said before, I don't support Obama, in fact I despise many of the things he stands for. It's because of this I'm going to vote for him, because I believe he has the ability to lead the nation into economic ruin, increasing the chance of a fissure between some states and the federal government. While I hold 1 or 3 issues to be more important to me than the others, I do not vote or support based only on those 1-3 issues, and therefore cannot support any of these 3 people.

What I disagree with Paul on, I agree with Obama on, and vice versa. I think it's very much like a venn diagram - they meet in the middle on issues that are very important to me, and with all of the others they fall on one side or the other and are pretty much equal.

This I can't understand, but fair enough.

Why would she give up great benefits that she's had for years just to get a better paying job when she's going to have to pay the difference, and then some, to pay her medical expenses? Of course she has the choice to leave, it just fiscally and medically makes absolutely no sense. With any job you take the good with the bad - she gets underpaid, but she deals with it because anywhere else and she'd be screwed medically.

I'm on the other end - yes, I get paid very well for what I do, but my benefits are total crap. I'm young and healthy, so right now I can generally forego the doctor visits; the extra money is more important to me.

I don't understand why anyone feels it should be necessary to choose good health over a good job and vice versa; you should be able to have both without paying out the nose to get it. Quality of living and overall health just aren't something I personally feel a person should have to prioritize between.

High pay /= Poor benefits. You're whole assumption is that a person has the choice between a job that pays well with poor benefits, or a job that pays crap with good benefits. That is of course, ridiculous. It may be your current situation, but is not all inclusive.

I don't understand why anyone feels it should be necessary for their decisions and personal health to become my responsibility through national healthcare. I don't understand why anyone feels I should have any responsibility to make up for the choices they made in their life. The whole idea stems down to "well I got a crappy deal, let me have your cards."

[Lyion]

I don't have a problem with working on things in a bi-partisan manner in many areas, as long as you don't compromise your espoused values and beliefs in doing so. I do appreciate McCain in this to an extent, but I feel he takes it to far at times. I don't trust him on illegal immigration, abortion, and taxes. Illegal immigration is probably where I take the strongest issue with him, and he was at the forefront of the recycled failed attempt of the Regan era to deal with the issue. On abortion it's not his voting record, but some of the things he's said regarding the issue, most notably characterizing it as necessary... which by extension if one views it as murder would be akin to a "necessary evil". On taxes, not once but twice he opposed tax cuts but later called for their extension citing that he wanted them accompanied by something else (but only after the fact).

McCain-Fiengold is not a core issue to me as it is with many who dislike McCain. I classify this as a "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" blunder, a well intentioned mistake if you will.

The illegal immigration issue is one of contention, and it bothers me so many do not respect other's opinions and beliefs. I think Mccain's plan was smart and did a lot of things right. There is no perfect plan, and there will be no mass deportation of tens of millions of people. I preferred it, many did not. It is certainly not a huge lynchpin, like judges, abortion, or taxes where Mccain has a strong record.

It's a given the primary process is choosing someone most aligned to ones position. I'm not quite sure how you could prefer Romney over Mccain in regards to taxes and abortion. Romney has a much heavier tax history, and is very dodgy and was actually disturbingly pro choice until recently when he decided to run for President.

You say it is not his voting record, but it should be! Hearsay and side comments do not measure up to how one has voted. If they did, I'm not quite sure how you could even put Romney in the same ballpark as Mccain given his overt abortion stance.

The reasoning behind Mccain's opposition to the original tax cut bill was understood and empathized by most conservatives, and is now being overtly taken out of context, such as you have done. Mccain was a stalwart supporter later on, and has been one of the leaders in assuring this bill passed, and likely will be extended again.

A lot of conservatives do not like Mccain because he isn't polarizing, partisan, and is actually friendly with people of different beliefs. This is exactly the type of person we need leading the country. Not one who has no belief in compromise or listening to counterpoints.

[Evermore]

McCAin's drawback is Iraq and his stance on national security.