My God

[Drem]

what planet do you live on where you don't want universal health care, you want COAL MINES to stay open (hello a hundred fucking years ago), you think we won't have ELECTRICITY AND FREE SPEECH IN 4 YEARS (LOLOLOLOL), and you think we'll turn into a socialist regime.

unbelievable. i can't wait until you republicans are out of this mess. maybe we can finally fix our shattered image, like clinton started to. before you fucking morons ruined everything

[Diekan]

I already voted and it wasn't for McCain or Obama.

Obama will win this by a landslide.

[Diekan]

My favorite video of him. I think it says it all.

[brinstar]

fuck yeah

[brinstar]

also

next time i get pissed/worried about something i am gonna make sure to post a hundred billion poorly-edited amateur youtube videos that disregard facts and jump to hideous conclusions just because they support my unreasonable fears

i mean that's all you need for a valid argument these days, right? just a bunch of shitty youtube garbage?

[Arlos]

I still want to hear from Diekan why he doesn't count the CIA, FBI, NSA and local Police & Fire departments as non-military anti-terrorism forces, and instead assumes that Obama is talking about creating some new bizarre paramilitary force....

Seriously, this is the impression that gives off:



-Arlos

[araby]

You're delusional if you think either of the main candidates will make things better. The best we can hope for is they maintain the status quo.

Unfortunately, neither one will be willing to keep their noses out of crap they don't understand and at the end of 4 years things will be much much worse.

Your vote is wasted so it makes no difference 100% waste, well outside the fact that if your "out of the norm" candidates don't get at least, what is it, 28k or 280k votes or something, your party goes bye bye for good.

Clakar, you don't really know what you're talking about.

Reports The Washington Times, "As with every presidential election, the independent and Libertarian voters can make or break a mainstream candidate because they represent 41 percent of the electorate. Right after the Republican convention, John McCain showed a 12 percent jump in support among independent voters, according to a Gallup poll. The increase was due in part to Mrs. Palin."

Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate for a number of reasons, one of which was to appeal to independent voters in closely-contested swing states who might support Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr. While you are correct in the assertion that an independent president is doubtful, you are very ignorant in thinking these votes do not count, are wasted or making no difference.

Understand that independent voters do not necessarily believe their candidate will win or come close. It is much more, it is absolutely more than likely the fact that they refuse to support a "lesser of two evils" which is ensuring eternal evil, it is voting for what they believe NO MATTER what the choices are, even if they are the majority, and REALIZING that the majority does not necessary mean the best.

[Hatak]

Understand that independent voters do not necessarily believe their candidate will win or come close. It is much more, it is absolutely more than likely the fact that they refuse to support a "lesser of two evils" which is ensuring eternal evil, it is voting for what they believe NO MATTER what the choices are, even if they are the majority, and REALIZING that the majority does not necessary mean the best.

So they think they're clever for voting the "lesser of three evils" instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils"? Sounds like the same line of thinking to me...

[araby]

Understand that independent voters do not necessarily believe their candidate will win or come close. It is much more, it is absolutely more than likely the fact that they refuse to support a "lesser of two evils" which is ensuring eternal evil, it is voting for what they believe NO MATTER what the choices are, even if they are the majority, and REALIZING that the majority does not necessary mean the best.

So they think they're clever for voting the "lesser of three evils" instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils"? Sounds like the same line of thinking to me...

That would be true if the third party had EVER been in office enough to cause such evil. So no.

[Hatak]

Just because they haven't been given the opportunity to cause any damage doesn't make them any less evil...

[Martrae]

Understand that independent voters do not necessarily believe their candidate will win or come close. It is much more, it is absolutely more than likely the fact that they refuse to support a "lesser of two evils" which is ensuring eternal evil, it is voting for what they believe NO MATTER what the choices are, even if they are the majority, and REALIZING that the majority does not necessary mean the best.

So they think they're clever for voting the "lesser of three evils" instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils"? Sounds like the same line of thinking to me...

Uh no. It is possible to vote for someone because you think they are a good candidate, ya know.

[araby]

Understand that independent voters do not necessarily believe their candidate will win or come close. It is much more, it is absolutely more than likely the fact that they refuse to support a "lesser of two evils" which is ensuring eternal evil, it is voting for what they believe NO MATTER what the choices are, even if they are the majority, and REALIZING that the majority does not necessary mean the best.

So they think they're clever for voting the "lesser of three evils" instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils"? Sounds like the same line of thinking to me...

Uh no. It is possible to vote for someone because you think they are a good candidate, ya know.

Yes, and it's possible for Obama and McCain supporters to vote for them because they think *they* are good candidates as well. Again, you won't find me bashing Obama or McCain-I can simply say why I don't support either. The "lesser of two evils" isn't a phrase *I* came up with...there are elevendy thousand voters who are voting for the "lesser of two evils" today. Sorry Hatak, but it is true that a third party has never been president and you can't say they fall into that same category. They are a minority and you'd have to show me where they are evil and then I'd consider your argument.



As far as

[Diekan]

I still want to hear from Diekan why he doesn't count the CIA, FBI, NSA and local Police & Fire departments as non-military anti-terrorism forces, and instead assumes that Obama is talking about creating some new bizarre paramilitary force....

Seriously, this is the impression that gives off:



-Arlos

Arlos please... you've had enough Kool-Aid for one election.

You tried this arguement with taxes... it didn't work then and it's not going to work now. As a refresher... taxes are acquired to build new roads, fund education, pay the wages of government employees, provide for the military. Spreading the wealth around (which is taking from those who have and simply giving it to those who do not have) is not even close the same thing as taxation.

A fully funded civilian paramilitary group? Ok, let's talk about it for a moment. Obama says he doesn't want to rely on solely on the military to protect us from terrorists... yet in the next breath he talks about slashing the military's budget to shreds with the intent of weaking our national defense. So, rather than simply building the military up, he'd rather create a paramilitary group? Who exactly is going to have control of this group? He wants it to be as strong as the military?

The CIA is a group of government employees specially trained in intel gathering. Fire Departments are specialized in fighting fires, police in dealing with crime, the military in fighting wars, the list goes on. But, there in lies my point. We have fire departments, a military, a national guard, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the department of Homeland Security, local and state police forces... why do we now suddenly need a civilian paramilitary group to fight terrorism? They are not the same because his true intent isn't for protection. His true intent is much more sinister. You Obama supports will get your wish when he wins tonight. And durning the next four years, those of you with a brain, will be thinking "what the fuck did we do?"

[Tossica]

Ok then dipshit. In 4 years you can come and say "Told ya so!" Now shut the fuck up. Cool?

[Diekan]

After you blow me... sure.

[Drem]

you're all insane

[Arlos]

Again I say, show me where, ANYWHERE he calls for a paramilitary group. HE DOES NO SUCH FUCKING THING. Interpreting what he said in that first clip as calling for a paramilitary group is about the most outlandish thing I have ever heard. It is so left field that I don't even begin to understand the logic train that spawned that conclusion. Seriously, talk about tinfoil hat brigade...

His specific words were "A civilian national security force"

Well, guess what:

The CIA is a civilian national security force.
The FBI is a civilian national security force.
The NSA (you know, the NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY) is a CIVILIAN national security force. (gee, I would never have guessed that by the name)
Local police forces have national security duties. (you know the whole first responder thing?)
Local fire departments the same thing.

*ALL* of these are civilian national security forces, and yes, COULD use improving, especially things like port security, etc.

Seriously man, you're raving. Stop and THINK for a minute. You're acting like one of those crazy people wandering around in clapboard signs saying "THE END IS NIGH".

-Arlos

[Haylo]

Diekan you should find the entire clip. It's actually a talk on building up the volunteer forces of America, how we have Americorps already but it doesn't get a lot of participation etc. He wants to reward volunteer service. I'll see if I can find the complete transcript, I wonder if that would get you to change your comments here but I doubt it :p As much as you rail at the kool-aid drinkers, I haven't heard you ever retreat from a wrong point. My school district here in MD has required volunteer hours for graduation for 11 years now, I had assumed all states did but I guess not. He does mention that he would like volunteer service to be required, I don't know if you think that's un-American or not.

You keep railing against all of the Obama supporters, but you voted for Bush correct? I seriously doubt that Obama is going to turn out any worse than Bush did. I have said previously that if the John McCain of 2000 had been the one in this race, I would have felt much more secure in a win going either way. But he's not. Add that to the fact that he looks like he's going to keel over, with Caribou barbie as his VP pick, would you really rather see him win?

I'm sorry that this election isn't going your way, the last two didn't go my way. I feel it's not prudent to go all crazy end of the world though.

[Gaazy]

We in the coal business still arent even really worried no matter who gets elected. No matter what comes out of those big soup cooler lips, and no matter how bad he wants to do away with coal (or any of you for that matter), the big picture is, you cant. At least not for years and years and years. You want to power the entire country on wind? solar? Good luck with that.

That, and more and more coal all the time is being used as met coal, not steam coal. As long as long a syou are using metals, whether its building structures or whatever, you need coal.

So bitch about it all you want, pray for whatever president you want, its not going anywhere anytime soon.

[Tossica]

I think coal should be part of any long term energy plan. I don't think anyone is suggesting that everything can be powered by solar, wind, water power right now but eventually, hopefully it will. I think most people but those that have financial ties to the coal industry would like to see that happen. Safe, renewable, cheap, environmentally friendly energy? Who DOESN'T want that? I think electing officials that will make it happen the fastest is a good thing. Sorry you don't agree but the rest of the planet will appreciate it when it's used minimally.

[Haylo]

Diekan here's the relevant part of the speech, i'll have to see if I can find the link to the entire video not just the spliced/edited version.

Originally Posted by Senator Obama
Just as we must value and encourage military service across our society, we must honor and expand other opportunities to serve. Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but it also depends on the teacher in East LA, or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia. . . .

Today, AmeriCorps – our nation’s network of local, state and national service programs – has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife Michelle once left her job at a law firm at city hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. These programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America’s greatest resource – our citizens.

That’s why as President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.

So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

[Gaazy]

oh, and as far as the usual "100 year old coal mine technology" goes that everyone goes to when they run out of other stuff to talk about, its still around because its still more efficient than almost everything else. Drop that faggot music major, go for a science degree, and go find a more efficient way of powering people's homes if you want a change, Drem. And you guys want to be 'energy independent' and get away from the ragheads in the middle east? I know I do. That, 100 year old shit, is godamn near one of the only options you have there (hint: coal-to-liquids technology, for one, its right in front of everyone) I cant even imagine how many of those windmills it would take to fuel our country


Now, I do agree we need to look at all options for better means of getting power, but fuck, what options? Build windmills all over our backyards and along the streets?

[Arlos]

Gaazy, you have an opinion on this argument?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/07/coal.river/

http://www.sundaygazettemail.com/Opinio ... 0808211291


This is what I was talking about with the windmill vs mountaintopping argument.

-Arlos

[Gaazy]

The technology to make coal burn cleaner and even RE-USE the emissions to make even MORE power is already there! Thats what blows my mind. Like I said, yes, we need to find other alternatives to making energy, but there is technology sitting right in front of them, and they want to go off and chase invisible means. Oh well, the only reason I post anything in CA is too see people go apeshit, fun stuff. It doesnt matter what anyone thinks, coal isnt dissappearing, like I said, anytime soon. Even if you could go 100% alternative in this country, coal still isnt going anywhere. We ship most of our coal here overseas anyways, AND youve still got to have met coal just as much as steam coal (at least as long as this country decides to grow and expand). So its all good either way

[Arlos]

You ninja-posted right after me! Read my post just before yours and comment, you hickster!

-Arlos