Who are you going to vote for and why?

[southwind]

You say that like it's a bad thing... The rest of your post was probably one of the most off the mark things I've ever read on here. What's it like to traffic in stereotypes like that?




Well put.




No we're not.

We all like the ideal of democracy, but reality is a whole different animal.




Who cares? As long as he handles the business, that's irrelevant. McCain isn't exactly a polished speaker, either...




We could use a good dose of idealism in this country.

As for why I'm voting for Obama, here's my top 4:

1. His stance on infrastructure renewal.

2. His advocacy of phased withdrawl from Iraq.

3. His plan for health care (have any Republican on here actually read McCain's?!)

4. His position on education



Yes you do, or you wouldn't have posted. Unless you just like to "hear" yourself talk....

1. Income re-distribution !

2. Err.........the Republican way of ending the war !

3. Socialized Medicine

4. Teaching Sexual Education to kindergarten childern !

All sounds good............................if you live in Russia !

 

[Dignity]

my personal opinion at the moment is none of the above. both are creating division with their campaigning and that is not what the country needs at this time. solutions and realistic policies implemented I tend to agree with some of the democrat ideas, however the near trillion dollar bailout may make those not so attainable on top of every other spending proposal including the war. The process of the democrat primary this year was very disturbing(how effectively they showed the world how they cannot work well together within their own party) it was frightening.
I tend to vote conservative on many issues.
either way though(who ever ends up First Lady) there will be one of two highly respectable women, Michelle with her education and Cindy with her humanitarian good deeds(especially her involvement in project smile)

 

[North by Northwest]

Hey NXNW.....................you left out your main reason for voting Nobama.................he's "PRO-UNION" !

THANKS buddy for catching that!

 

[robbedagain]

after watching bush steal 2 elections a unneccessary war whereas nearly 4200 troops are needlessly dying, allowing OSAMA Bin Laden get off the hook, watching us the middle class people get tossed into the dumps, watch as our wages have flown out the door, and watch as the world becomes disengaged with the usa due to bush's foreign policies, and gitmobay i cant think of any reason why we need another 4 more yrs of nothing but the same FAILED policies that certainly mccain would bring and God forbid if somethin happen, then having a totally unexperience vp become the pres. hmmm lookie i can see russia from my state home. gee i wonder if i can see ireland from the white house. yea thats good enough to vote out the republicans

 

[Dignity]

personally do not buy that democrat = good and republican = bad and vice/versa. the situation present with the economy today goes way back before the Bush Administration and a lot of it also is the result of personal choices and those decisions to purchase homes one would have never qualified for in the first place. while I agree it was probably a good idea to try and place as many Americans in homes, the end result was disastrous(was it worth it). that is not entirely the republicans fault nor the democrats. its seems as though personal accountability never plays a factor ...any more... as people continue to point fingers and attempt to persuade "its the others parties fault".....we will never get anywhere with that kind of thinking.. ::sigh::

 

[Kev3188]

Wow. The obvious question to you is why, instead of debating the topic and sharing your opinion, you decide to attack the poster and his opinions. Kinda of ironic a few posts ago a member stated he would keep his vote to himself for fear of getting attacked.

You deem his opinion "one of the most off the mark" and full of stereotypes. Well, his opinion may be "off the mark" in YOUR opinion.

Why don't you refute it with facts instead of attacks? Maybe because you have come up with zilch?? h34r:

By "him," do you mean you?

Do you not see the irony in calling someone out for a personal attack, when you yourself did the very same thing?

Fact: I'm an educated/informed voter, and I'm voting for Obama, thus your thesis is incorrect.

As for my reasons, check out my original reply for my main issues.

All sounds good............................if you live in Russia America!

Fixed your post....

By the way, are you going to stick around for this one, or will it be more of the hit and run posting i've come to expect from you?

 

[robbedagain]

personally do not buy that democrat = good and republican = bad and vice/versa. the situation present with the economy today goes way back before the Bush Administration and a lot of it also is the result of personal choices and those decisions to purchase homes one would have never qualified for in the first place. while I agree it was probably a good idea to try and place as many Americans in homes, the end result was disastrous(was it worth it). that is not entirely the republicans fault nor the democrats. its seems as though personal accountability never plays a factor ...any more... as people continue to point fingers and attempt to persuade "its the others parties fault".....we will never get anywhere with that kind of thinking.. ::sigh::

I have to wonder just how much of it was the mortgage lenders versus the people because i would think that good folks would stand and say "hey look, this is what I earn lets go with this" or something to that nature. I do agree with you

 

[4merresrat]

By "him," do you mean you?

Do you not see the irony in calling someone out for a personal attack, when you yourself did the very same thing?

Fact: I'm an educated/informed voter, and I'm voting for Obama, thus your thesis is incorrect.

As for my reasons, check out my original reply for my main issues.
Fixed your post....

By the way, are you going to stick around for this one, or will it be more of the hit and run posting i've come to expect from you?

Not quite sure what your talking about but I'll give it a go. . . No, I did not mean myself when I refered to "him" as him, I meant the fellow poster. I meant the post you (Kev3188) quoted and replied to and it wasn't my post so I refered to it as "him." I think that is standard? Maybe you are confused.

Yes, I questioned your decision to attack and belittle instead of debating. Lastly, you acuse me of "hit and run" posting. I can assure you I am not one to run, but hey I certainly may be sporatic on my posts as I can't sit in front of the computer continually, if that is what you are refering to.

And it is possible you are an exception to my thesis. . . maybe just misguided?

 

[tech2101]

And it is possible you are an exception to my thesis. . . maybe just misguided?

Yes, you are.

 

[UAL_TECH]

As we are less than a month away from the Presidential Election, who are you planning on voting for and why? The unions at LCC have spent lots of our dues monies telling us to vote Democratic, but how do you really feel? Do you like being told by your union how you should vote? Were you planning on voting that way? Do you think your union dues should be spent telling you these things? I'm just curious?

Thoughts?

Given this thread definition.
I confirm that I will not be voting in the incumbent.

B) xUT

 

[Kev3188]

Not quite sure what your talking about but I'll give it a go. . . No, I did not mean myself when I refered to "him" as him, I meant the fellow poster. I meant the post you (Kev3188) quoted and replied to and it wasn't my post so I refered to it as "him." I think that is standard? Maybe you are confused.

Go back and read again... it was you I was referring to... that is unless there's two 4merresrats on here?

Yes, I questioned your decision to attack and belittle instead of debating. Lastly, you acuse me of "hit and run" posting. I can assure you I am not one to run, but hey I certainly may be sporatic on my posts as I can't sit in front of the computer continually, if that is what you are refering to.

Read who I quote more closely. The hit and run comment was directed toward Southwind, not you.

And it is possible you are an exception to my thesis. . . maybe just misguided?

Misguided? Not even close.

 

[Dignity]

I have to wonder just how much of it was the mortgage lenders versus the people because i would think that good folks would stand and say "hey look, this is what I earn lets go with this" or something to that nature. I do agree with you

I am thinking it is probably both, the mortgage lender with the buyer at the top of responsibility (because they are the ones who actually agreed to the loans in the first place) however...when the housing market was booming and properties were being sold as soon as they were finished construction(some sold during that process) existing homes selling left and right.. it is understandable to a degree that people may have thought, well "we can always refinance this home we cannot really afford later" "buy more house now and get the potential to get more money back when it is sold" or simply when properties are selling as they were, multiple bids may have been offered and someone would have gone to the highest amount plus to get the home they want(outbidding others, while the lender happily lent out the money to accommodate their purchase, even if they could afford it or not). so in a way the lenders enabled a lot of people to buy homes they may not have necessarily afforded and that was wrong, but also ultimately it is the buyer who started all of it by agreeing to the terms. the issue was simply a lot of people were making a lot of money..what it really boils down to..and it was a gamble because if you win, you eventually lose(and you dont want to lose the house).

of course medical reasons, a job loss, disability any other unforeseen factor may have caused some not to be able to afford that mortgage they agreed, that is why one always must stay realistic what you can afford due to those "unforeseen" events in the future(that is easier said that done, I live in the real world!). I have always thought if it takes two incomes to pay the mortgage then they are looking at too much house, its a good idea for a couple to have a mortgage one spouse, one income can handle in the event of a loss of income(you have to keep a roof over your head). with a single income purchasing a home, a good down payment and absolutely a realistic payment(because if that income is gone the home will also shortly thereafter if it is at the maximum purchase)

ultimately regardless..the responsibility still falls back on the home owner and the terms of that loan.

but it has happened, all they can do now is attempt to aleaveate the situation present some way, and I dont think all the new spending proposals proposed by the democrats will help much, focusing on green energy, global poverty act and all the other issues that are important.. but not a priority right now... at the moment when the economy is falling apart today. and even though most lenders/home owners created a mess, it still must be corrected, so I want to hear what is going to happen with a viable plan to repair the financial situation first instead of spending another 150 billion on bio fuels that may be available in 20 years when people are on the streets..(cant leave people stranded even if they made a bad choice)..

 

[UAL_TECH]

I am thinking it is probably both, the mortgage lender with the buyer at the top of responsibility (because they are the ones who actually agreed to the loans in the first place) however...when the housing market was booming and properties were being sold as soon as they were finished construction(some sold during that process) existing homes selling left and right.. it is understandable to a degree that people may have thought, well "we can always refinance this home we cannot really afford later" "buy more house now and get the potential to get more money back when it is sold" or simply when properties are selling as they were, multiple bids may have been offered and someone would have gone to the highest amount plus to get the home they want(outbidding others, while the lender happily lent out the money to accommodate their purchase, even if they could afford it or not). so in a way the lenders enabled a lot of people to buy homes they may not have necessarily afforded and that was wrong, but also ultimately it is the buyer who started all of it by agreeing to the terms. the issue was simply a lot of people were making a lot of money..what it really boils down to..and it was a gamble because if you win, you eventually lose(and you dont want to lose the house).

of course medical reasons, a job loss, disability any other unforeseen factor may have caused some not to be able to afford that mortgage they agreed, that is why one always must stay realistic what you can afford due to those "unforeseen" events in the future(that is easier said that done, I live in the real world!). I have always thought if it takes two incomes to pay the mortgage then they are looking at too much house, its a good idea for a couple to have a mortgage one spouse, one income can handle in the event of a loss of income(you have to keep a roof over your head). with a single income purchasing a home, a good down payment and absolutely a realistic payment(because if that income is gone the home will also shortly thereafter if it is at the maximum purchase)

ultimately regardless..the responsibility still falls back on the home owner and the terms of that loan.

but it has happened, all they can do now is attempt to aleaveate the situation present some way, and I dont think all the new spending proposals proposed by the democrats will help much, focusing on green energy, global poverty act and all the other issues that are important.. but not a priority right now... at the moment when the economy is falling apart today. and even though most lenders/home owners created a mess, it still must be corrected, so I want to hear what is going to happen with a viable plan to repair the financial situation first instead of spending another 150 billion on bio fuels that may be available in 20 years when people are on the streets..(cant leave people stranded even if they made a bad choice)..

Dig,

IMHO, change your handle.

 

[JS]

Every four years since I was first eligible to vote in 1992, I hoped for a good Republican candidate, and every four years I'm disappointed.

I once again have voted Libertarian for President (voted absentee since I won't be here Nov. 4). Of course every time I lose, but I refuse to vote for Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. or John McCain.

This time I thought it would be different, but once again I see the Republican candidate wanting to spend mega bucks and engage ourselves in wars on foreign soil (the exact opposite of the Libertarian platform -- spend only what is necessary and stay out of other countries' business).


Thank goodness there are other choices besides McCain and Obama. Otherwise I would have to vote for John McCain. I would rather slit my wrists than vote for Obama.

 

[Dignity]

Dig,

IMHO, change your handle.

Thank you for your suggestion... I firmly believe that people should be treated humanely and fairly while still being personally responsible for their own actions/decisions. I believe that people in the event of lost homes should be helped as a priority today regardless of the circumstance as mentioned...(cant leave people stranded even if they made a bad choice)... Priorities, take care of those families who lost homes(regardless how it happened at this point) in our country first the rest will work it self out eventually..