Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html

Obama, whom says he loves his email, should have thought about that one longer. Not to mention George W. Bush gave up email when he was sworn into office for security reasons--Obama is likely to have to do the same thing.


IMO, peer to peer technology has always been like that old saying about guns: "guns don't kill people; people kill people." The technology itself was born because the RIAA was actively taking down pirate websites but that doesn't mean it's only use is criminal. It's like attacking Intel because they make processors that could be used in an enemy's smart bomb or attacking the gun industry because some unstable student went on rampage attempting to kill everyone that wronged him/her. Guns, processors, and P2P are all simply tools. They don't do anything bad unless someone tells them to.


Personally, I think Biden has a lot of lobby money lining his wallet.

There. Fixed that for you.

They don't tell you not to operate motor vehicles or make important decisions for at least 24 hours after being drugged for a reason so, no, the way I wrote is completely correct. I know from experience what even prescription drugs can do my ability to make decisions and as such, recognize that said statement points to people that a) never had a drug and mindlessly supports them or b) is an addict. Knowing our past conversations, I choose point b. Seek help and not from weeds.

Wow. So either you've never tried a drug, or you're an addict? Definitely among the funniest statements I've read that someone else made seriously... which is... why I don't particularly want to dive into this subject on someone else's forum thread. So uh...

[/hijack]

Anyways. Biden's a tool. I recently read about his super pro-MPAA/RIAA stance, etc... which made me dislike him more. He's an ardent gun-grabber, too, and from what I've seen, a jackass to people who disagree with him. I might've considered Obama but... heh. Not anymore.

I'm not a crazy wack-nuts conservative (at least, I don't *think* I am...) but... I have to say: I heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio this morning (they listen to it at my Guard unit, okay?) saying something along the lines that Biden was chosen as Obama's veep nominee due to the fact that he was a white, Christian male -- that the Obama campaign wouldn't have stood a chance with mainstream America as a black man teaming up with a white woman.

I'm... rather inexperienced as to elections and what-have-you, but... as ashamed as I am to admit it, it seems like Rush might have a sound theory there. Am I right? Or am I just clearly a racist prick?

No, you're a sexist prick. XD j/k

I don't think it's racist of you to think that. You have to be realistic. You may not be racist toward black people (or any people for that matter) but a good chunk of America is, and a good chunk of America wants to keep things the same as they've always been, white American male in office. Sad, but true.

Alas, I will no longer be voting for Obama. I am very anti-RIAA and MPAA. And I hope people realize that to be anti-RIAA/MPAA doesn't make one inherently a pirate. I just think the system is f**ked up, and we need to do something about it.

A_Pickle said:
I think it has a lot more to do with McCains extensive foreign policy experience and Obama's complete lack of it. Now that Russia is getting pushy again, Obama could never win by himself (look how quickly the race went from McCain being down by 8 points to being tied at 47). He needed someone with a lot of foreign policy experience which, in the Democratic party, there is no one more experienced on that subject than Joe Biden; however, Biden is not a man without faults. I believe Biden is going to be more of a liability to the Obama campaign than a blessing. Just yesterday, he said "let's give them the devil" while campaigning. Yeah...that doesn't reside well with a lot of people. Biden also destroys the whole "change" message from the Obama campaign. We also can't forget everything he said back in the primary season which McCain's campaign has already used against their ticket...

I think things are shaping up pretty bad for the Democrats. This year should have been a gimme for them and look how divided they still are over the Clintons. What a train wreck.

Bobby said:

Heh...have you checked out the opposition's position on the subject? Not going to be a good year by that measuring stick, no matter which candidate wins. But hey, I guess you can always vote for Barr

Yeah.

I can't believe we are delving into this again. So I'll try a different track:
"EXPERIENCE" = Proving YOU can be the biggest lying prick on the face of the earth.
"INEXPERIENCE" = PEOPLE don't KNOW you're the biggest lying prick on the face of the earth, but can claim you ARE.
Either way, the prick wins and we are screwed.
What party do I belong to? The Contrarian Party! Anything to mix it up and CHANGE the male bovine fecal matter clogging our political process.
I voted for Ron Paul in the Primaries, and will most likely NOT vote for McCain in the Final electoral selection due to his being MORE OF THE SAME.
I like OBAMA more because he give COMPLICATED ANSWERS to COMPLICATED questions, whereas McCAIN does just the opposite, just like our present Executive.
I DO admire some of what McCAIN has done, but I think he is hindbound in a way that OBAMA isn't. I'm not voting for myself, but for my children, and I think Obama is the better choice for them.

Gerritt said:
That's what Obama's campaign wants you to believe. McCain's record states otherwise. The don't call him a maverick for a reason. Moreover, his loss to Bush almost convinced him to change to the Democratic party following the 2000 elections.


Gerritt said:
Obama usually avoids the question outright, drags on about it until you lose attention, or tries to dial down the center (ehm, effectively undecided...like pro-life/pro-choice). The word often used by the press to described it is "nuanced." McCain, on the other hand, does what he calls "straight talk" as I'm sure you remember from the 2000 elections. He gives answers almost always outright and sometimes it gets him in trouble; however, he doesn't attempt to hide how he feels on most issues. In wartime tactics, McCain would be the direct assault and Obama is the indirect assault. I think history teaches us that in politics, direct is far more effective than indirect.


Also, I must point out that Obama voted in line with the Democratic Party 95.9%[1] of the time with Biden at 96.6%[2] so far in the 110th Congress. McCain is at 88.3%[3] against the Republican party. As such, the only "change" the Obama ticket really represents is that of the switching between the Republican and Democratic party. As you should know very well, the President is only as effective in terms of law making as the Congress he/she must work with. The wheels of change are that of bipartisanship. I don't think I need to delve into details there.

1. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
2. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000444/
3. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/

Ford,
Based upon my ""EXPERIENCE"=" quote, I think we will have to disagree.
McCain hasn't done, nor has any party politician done, much for me, but McCain did take an intregal part in the Keating 5 fiasco, something that has had a direct impact in my life, he also voted for both Gulf Wars. Though the first one was multilateral, it did not go far enough, and the second was unilateral, and went too far.

Barack Obama, on the other hand has not done anything that has directly impacted me thus far, thus the Contrarian viewpoint I have. I like the idea that Obama thinks, and that he does have a tendency to disassociate his beliefs from his political position, even if I do disagree sometimes. It indicates a complex approach to a complex world.

McCain's, "Straight Talk" is not indicative of a flexible mindset/individual, and this is what is needed in a complex/flexible world.

I will reitterate once again, that I have great admiration for Mr. McCain, and I appreciate what he suffered for this country, and his continued service. I just don't think that he is the right man for the job right now. If you'd have asked me 8 years ago, I think you would have gotten a totally different answer, but times, and McCain have changed since then.

BTW, even though most of the Democrats I know like Mr. Biden, I'm not a big fan by any stretch of the imagination, but then again, the only VP I've actually liked since I started voting would have to be G. H. W. Bush, and yes, I voted for him. I live in Florida, and didn't vote for either of his sons.

Gerritt said:
The committee ruled that he had little involvement in the Keating Five incident. He was cited only for "poor judgement." Out of the Keating Five incident, we got the McCain-Feingold Act which is about the only thing keeping campaigns honest. Most politicians hated the proposition because it severely constraints one's ability to campaign but, through bipartisan campaigning, he did it. Ever since, he has been distant from any form of lobbying.


Gerritt said:
It really is quite simple. The logistics simply weren't there back in 1991 to remove Hussein from power. The second war was started prematurely in hopes of killing Hussein outright. It almost succeeded too (Hussein was injured in the strike). Unfortunately, it didn't kill him so we ended up being at war two weeks ahead of schedule. Other nations really don't like to get involved in a war that was already started. I'm not saying the Bush office couldn't have done a better job at getting more support but he took a gamble and lost. You have to roll with the punches in reality, unfortunately.


Gerritt said:
Situations are only as complex as you make them. Again, the most effective approach is a direct one. For instance, Kennedy and putting a man on the moon; Reagan declaring the Berlin Wall must come down; Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring war with Japan; Bush declaring war against terrorism. People need marching orders; Obama is bad at delivering them.


Gerritt said:
It is indicative of demanding action. His active pursuit of bipartisan campaign reform is indicative of flexibility arguably more so than any other Senator on Capital Hill.


There is only three reasons why I support McCain...
1) He wants to expand nuclear energy in the USA. Obama's plan excludes nuclear and emphasizes "renewable." I just happen to live near many wind farms and they p**s me off. Why? Because they waste enormous amounts of steel, cover enormous amounts of land, only work when the wind is blowing, and produce very little energy compared to any power plant based on steam. One little nuclear power plant hiding behind some trees can remove well over 100 of those giant tooth picks from the surface of the Earth. Yes, I know they produce waste and I know they have a hazard of meltdown but, since fusion still isn't viable commercially yet, it is the only form of energy that doesn't waste steel nor land and doesn't pollute the air. Concentrated, solid pollution is much more easy to deal with than fossil fuel plants.
2) Not accepting failure in Iraq. Simply put, I will not accept a repeat of Vietnam.
3) Bipartisan legislation. The job of the President, in terms of law, is to sign/veto and to get support in Congress behind bills. McCain is arguably the best at the latter. I do want change and I see McCain as the only one capable, and willing, to make it happen. He will also veto any bill with earmarks and try to get line-item veto legislation through to cut the head off the pork.

FordGT90Concept said:

Situations are only as complex as they are - pretending they're simple results in simple non-solutions that don't really solve complex problems, and may in fact make things worse. Exhibit (obscenity) A is Iraq. Actions in response don't necessarily have to be complex, but they have to be planned in light of reality, not the reality we might want.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - as much as Biden was Obama's "safe choice", and very much a traditional Washington insider, I'm pleased to see Obama choosing someone who doesn't agree on all his positions. If you want to get smarter, find smart people who disagree with you and have some arguments. If you want to get dumber, well, find a bunch of yes-men. I'd argue that the former is the way in which most of the free world has governed, and the latter much more representative of the totalitarian and communist states we supposedly oppose. I do not believe this is a coincidence.

I think the most important thing a president does is to select his cabinet, appointments, and staff. If this is done poorly, the presidency will probably never be successful. On this basis, I think Obama will be the better choice, and in the absence of many other real (important, to me) differentiating factors, it will probably be enough to get my vote. See, complex problem, simple action

Beavis Khan said:
The problem there was also not enough troops on the ground. The number sent in was designed for shock and awe, not policing/security force. It took what, 5/6 years to address that? That has to be the worst mistake the Bush presidency has made and it is a mistake that has been made many times throughout history: commander-in-chief not taking the advice of the commanders on the ground. Vietnam is another strong example of that failure.


Beavis Khan said:
All of 0.7% of the issues (potentially even less)?


Beavis Khan said:
I agree. Political circles do a great job at emphasizing issues which the President has very little control over (e.g., the economy and healthcare). Judicial appointments, by far, have the longest lasting impact of a Presidency. Staff, and especially cabinet, have a vast effect on the effectiveness of a Presidency.

Ford said: "There is only three reasons why I support McCain..."

THERE IS ONLY THREE REASONS.
or
There IS only THREE reasons.
or
There is THREE reasons.

IF you can see the difference, then you can't accept Ford's reasons for voting for McCAIN.

There ARE more than Three reasons not to vote for him.

I'm gonna have to make my piece here.

This will be the first election I ever take part in. I'm now 21 years old, and I have to hope the my vote, my one-three hundred millionth slice of political power, will go towards making my country a better place. And my choices are Senators Barack Obama and John McCain.

I'm not delusional. I don't believe for an instant that either of them are self-serving, grimy little politicians whose only interest is themselves -- I really, truly, believe that both of them believe as they do, and intend to act as they will, for the good of the United States. But I also really, truly, believe that both of them are terrible choices. And both of them are the candidates that we, the American people, have chosen. What could have gone possibly wrong?

Obama is a junior senator from Illinois. Some of what he says, I agree with. I AM tired of spin and PR from my politicians. I AM tired of the way things are. I DO want change. However, I'm hard-pressed to believe that he's the messianic force with which to bring about this change, when he and his supporters rabidly attack John McCain for his "100 years in Iraq" statement. From a campaign that claims to be "change" from the norm, and "mature," they sure seem quite like the usual... spin and PR from politicians. "Change?" How does a Democrat championing universal healthcare, NASA budget cuts, greening "efforts" on the edge of f**king irritating and increasing gun control count as "change?" That's been the same (idiotic) Democratic platform for years.

"Change?" He voted for the Patriot Act's renewal in 2006. And this Democratic Party led by their fearless Nancy Pelosi, a staunch critic of the Bush Administration and it's starting (and subsequent bungling) of the Iraq War and it's increasingly horde-ish attitude towards our civil liberties has done nothing but given them MORE of our liberties.

Then there's John McCain who I will begin by saying that, I like some of what he says, too. He feels human to me. A conservative who vehemently opposes torture. That's definitely something this country needs -- it's reputation back. And nuclear power? I'll give McCain the big thumbs up on this one, it's a clean, safe power source that generates a f**kton of electricity in an incredibly profitable manner. Democrats bitch about power sources that are too dirty, or wind generators killing migratory birds (or, I suppose it's the occasional bat that's killed by a low-pressure zone caused by the damn things), or gas prices that are too high. So some of those domestic policies of his are nice...

...but then, I'm just really turned off to electing another Republican to office. We trusted them in 2000. And for some idiotic reason, we trusted them again in 2004. Gay marriage and gays in the military is... still a debatable issue? Since when is religious affiliation a permissible reason to deny someone basic human rights? He supports teaching intelligent design in schools, as well.

And, I could give a s**t less what you think, Ford, but I'm tired of paying $40 billion a year to pay for a War on Drugs that does nothing but imprison 800,000 marijuana users annually (many of them having never once committed a violent crime) and exacerbates the bad things that come with illegal drugs, such as gangs, deaths by overdose, people avoiding "help" (because to our government, help is synonymous with prison, somehow). He wants stronger and harsher penalties in prisons, since that works. And he voted for the first and second issues of the Patriot Act, and helped "compromise" the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to what it is now.

I might add, neither McCain nor Obama has specifically stated what they will do with all of those luscious Executive Powers they'll be coming into, courtesy of our very own Shrub. Even if they were specific, there's no way to guarantee they would follow through with their decision.



With all of that said, I have to ask myself. Why on Earth would I give my slice of political power to either of these individuals? They don't represent me, my beliefs, and they certainly don't represent the founding fathers ideals of what this country would've been. Call me a poor sport, call me vindictive and spiteful, but Ron Paul is nothing but 100% correct when he said:

"The Founders would be ashamed."

So here we are again. Full circle. This will be the first election that I ever take part in. And... the truth is... this was a different election. For the first time in what I understand to have been a very, very long time (20 years, I'd say)... we, as Americans, had a very good choice. We had a man whose voting record lined up, perfectly, with his campaign promises -- and not only this year, but for his entire political career. He doesn't participate in the Congressional pension program, and he returns a portion of his Congressional office budget to the US treasury, every year. He served the country in the US Air Force as a flight surgeon, and has been married to the same woman for 50 years.



My only question is this.

How. The f**k. Did we f**k this election up so badly?



I'm tired of playing by the system. I could care less about "strategic voting" and casting my vote to deny a vote from politician A because he's less of a f**kup than politician B. Is that seriously what we're reduced to? America, land of the free, by the free? For the people, by the people? Then why do BOTH of our choices fail at the duty of government, that is -- to protect the rights of the people, those being of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Well. Some say Obama. Some say McCain. This is my first one-three hundred millionth that I'll be able to use. This is the first vote I'll ever cast. And in a giant middle finger to the pinko-green idiots in Denver this week, and to the iron-curtion reds in Minneapolis next week, I can say only this:




I'm writing in Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is practically a cultist which is why he got very little support in the primaries. People simply don't like him. Not to mention, he is a Senator thinking he has Judicial powers in deciding what is and isn't Constitutional. He also wants to withdrawl from NATO and UN. Basically wants to destroy the Social Security system by allowing individuals to opt out. He supports term limits and abolishing the income tax. How does he expect to pay for anything then?

And about the "War on Drugs." It is working and it can't be handled by states because drugs do cross state borders. The DEA has never been deemed unconstitiutional.

FordGT90Concept said:

Drugs are cheaper, more potent, and more available than ever today. If that's what you mean by "working", then yeah, I guess I'd agree with you.

We've been over that many times in the past. The point in the matter is drugs are very bad for socities. Because of that fact, they are and will remain to be illegal.