So Obama is up by 10+ points?

[lawrnk]

I really am getting tired of these pollsters. I'm reminded of June, 1988. Dukakis was up 8 points. Then the election came and he lost to the polls by a combined 16 points. Call this a rant. I can somewhat "get" the 2000, and 2004 elections. I can try to understand the liberal perspective during those elections. I wholeheartedly was against Gore and particulary Kerry. The sad part of this is, my best friend, and my own brother are still undecided during this election. Both are supporters of the RKBA. One is a feverent catholic. I try to argue with my brother, the catholic about partial birth abortion, etc.. It's this sort of manchurian syndrome. He plugs his ears and says lalalalalala and it is impossible to bring up any points against this "messiah." Does anyone else have people close to them, that are buyng into this mess? Obama makes Clinton look like a Reagan in comparison. God, I never thought I would have wished we were running against a Clinton right now. /Rant off.

[SCone]

Ask them one question....

How is it that gas prices have went up so far since the Dems took over Congress?

The war was already in play, the economy, Bush in office and everything else was the same. Only difference is the change in the Congress. Since then, everything went to h............

Thanks Nancy

[neal6325]

lawrnk,
I have a handful of friends similar to yours. It seems all things that were important to them in previous elections.....2 amend / Pro Life and such are not even priorities at this juncture. I am baffled at their lapse in principles.

It almost seems as if they are so engulfed in the hype and charisma of Obama that they have lost all common sense.

[CJATE]

How is it that gas prices have went up so far since the Dems took over Congress?

Congress what? don't you mean bush? all anyone wahts to talk about is bush, not congress, not demand in china, not weak doller due to , , , well congress.

[bdickens]

Ask them one question....

How is it that gas prices have went up so far since the Dems took over Congress?

The war was already in play, the economy, Bush in office and everything else was the same. Only difference is the change in the Congress. Since then, everything went to h............

Thanks Nancy

Be careful with that thinking; that is a prime example of the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Just because event A preceded event B does not mean that A caused B. While the Demopublican Congress has certainly done nothing to help the situation, there are a lot of other factors in play. Gas prices would probably still be just as high if the Republicrats still held Congress.

[Kerbouchard]

I typically ask what the most important issue is, to them.
After we get passed the 'Change' garbage and get to what kind of change, a couple of things come to the forefront.

Gas prices: So I ask them if they think building Nuclear Power Plants, more refineries and drilling offshore would be a step in the right direction or the wrong direction. Sometimes they counter with: this will take 3-5 years to make any impact, and I normally answer that we should have done this 10 years ago. They typically agree. Then I explain that Obama does not want to drill here, is against building refineries and is against nuclear power.

War in Iraq: This one is difficult, but I am usually at an advantage because I spent 14 months in the Persian Gulf. I ask them what they hate most about the War in Iraq. They usually answer either loss of lives or increasing costs. For loss of lives, it's easy to counter that violent crime in New York or Washington D.C. is higher than that of Iraq. That usually shocks them. For increasing costs, I try to help them see it as an investment for a safer middle east, a safer country for those that are there, and a safer United States. The war in Iraq helps concentrate the people who want to hurt us overseas, rather than on Main Street. It helps with the recent release that with the new biometrics they are identifying at least 1 person out of every 100 terrorists/enemy combatants that are being captured in overseas as people having arrest record HERE, in the United States. I would personally rather the people who want to hurt us, having left the U.S., and gone to fight us elsewhere, than here. I also argue that we have not been attacked on American soil since Sept 11.

Universal Health-care: This one is easy. All I have to do is bring up that nearly a third of people doing rehab or skilled surgery in the Northern States are from Canada. Either because the wait in Canada is too long, or the quality of care is too poor.

Global Warming: Yeah, I disagree with both McCain and Obama on this one...Until somebody can show me an SUV preserved somewhere that caused the last ice age to end, I'm going to have to go with the 'cycles' theory rather than man-made global warming, but neither candidate is different on this stance.

RKBA: This one is not as easy as it should be. McCain has not been our best supporter, but the truth is, the President does not have a huge amount of say in what happens on this specific topic. Far more important, are the kinds of Supreme Court Justices that McCain will nominate vs the kind that Obama will nominate(and easily get through a Democratic Congress). Just think how much differently the Heller case would have went if we had 1 more justice that was more of Obama's ilk.

Supreme Court Justices: I ask if they agree with the Supreme Court that a jury cannot sentence a serial child rapists to the death penalty. If they are interested, I explain the case. If they are not, I move on. I also ask them if they think terrorists or enemy combatants who have never set fut on U.S. soil should have the right of Trial by Jury. Most people are interested and are appalled that the Supreme Court would make such decisions, so I will go into which Justices made which vote. Then I explain who put those justices into office. Invariably, most normal people agree with the conservative judges. I then explain which kind of Justices McCain or Obama would likely appoint.

The Middle Class or the Working Poor: This one is fairly easy, too. What do you think is better for the working class? Higher taxes on the producers of products, therefore higher prices of those products, or less taxes, therefore enabling our American Made Products to compete with the products overseas. Some will always say that the 'rich' are unfairly benefited by Bush's Tax Cuts, but what it really comes down to, is the 99% of taxes are paid by the top 50% in earners. As has been shown over time, increasing taxes causes Federal Revenue to go down because people look for tax shelters. Decreasing taxes causes Federal Revenue to go up because more people are willing to speculate and invest, rather than just save. It's counterintuitive, which is why people like Obama have been able to confuse people.

In just about every issue that the normal person cares about, McCain is leaps and bounds above Obama. There is a difference. While there is room for 'Change', just make sure that the 'change' that you get is the change that YOU want.

[SCone]

From 11/06, they said they'd increase gas prices

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2 ... _cars.html

Here's a report from '07, they know where all the oil is going.. China

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Gasoline ... 020808.pdf

Maybe a survey will help

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P ... 0630a.html

And here it is from the Speaker herself

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/relea ... stamp.html

Did prices rise with Bush & a Republican Congress? Yes. But what did they do with a Democrat Congress? They doubled!

[Purplehood]

I typically ask what the most important issue is, to them.
After we get passed the 'Change' garbage and get to what kind of change, a couple of things come to the forefront.
Gas prices:
War in Iraq:
Universal Health-care:
Global Warming:
RKBA:
Supreme Court Justices:
The Middle Class or the Working Poor:

I was looking at the issues brought up above and realized that I am what some of the media-pundits now refer to as the "mushy-middle". I lean right on some issues and left on others. This means that in general I find it hard to be comfortable with any candidate that is out there.

I believe in a woman's right to choose. (LEFT)
I could care less about folks sexual preference. (LEFT)
I don't object to same-sex marriage. I would imagine it is as troublesome as my own past marriages. (LEFT)
I believe that Global Warming is a naturally reoccurring phenomenon. (RIGHT)
I believe that we need Nuclear Energy as a supplement to other forms of energy. (RIGHT)
I do not think that drilling in Alaska or offshore (US) will lead to lower gas prices for the consumer. I do believe that it will simply move some of the oil monies around to other rich folks. (CENTER?)
I believe in the Individual RKBA and the responsibility to put a check on a non-responsive US Government. (RIGHT)
I believe in the need for Universal Health Care/Socialized Medicine. (LEFT)
I haven't got a clue how to make the point above work. (CENTER?)
I am firmly against the war in Iraq as totally unnecessary. (LEFT)
I am firmly for the war in Afghanistan as totally necessary. (IGNORED BY BOTH THE RIGHT AND LEFT)
I believe that both the Democrats and the Republicans (and I do not mean the general populace, but the hierarchy of these parties) do not have the best interests of the Middle Class in mind. I feel that they would rather see the Middle Class fade into obscurity. (LIBERTARIAN?)
I believe that the two-party system is perfect for the politicians of the US. It allows one party to benefit by perpetuating poverty in the US, and the other party to perpetuate less-government (meaning less interference with Corporate interests) in the US. (CONSPIRACY THEORY~!)

[lawrnk]

I typically ask what the most important issue is, to them.
After we get passed the 'Change' garbage and get to what kind of change, a couple of things come to the forefront.
Gas prices:
War in Iraq:
Universal Health-care:
Global Warming:
RKBA:
Supreme Court Justices:
The Middle Class or the Working Poor:

I was looking at the issues brought up above and realized that I am what some of the media-pundits now refer to as the "mushy-middle". I lean right on some issues and left on others. This means that in general I find it hard to be comfortable with any candidate that is out there.

I believe in a woman's right to choose. (LEFT)
I could care less about folks sexual preference. (LEFT)
I don't object to same-sex marriage. I would imagine it is as troublesome as my own past marriages. (LEFT)
I believe that Global Warming is a naturally reoccurring phenomenon. (RIGHT)
I believe that we need Nuclear Energy as a supplement to other forms of energy. (RIGHT)
I do not think that drilling in Alaska or offshore (US) will lead to lower gas prices for the consumer. I do believe that it will simply move some of the oil monies around to other rich folks. (CENTER?)
I believe in the Individual RKBA and the responsibility to put a check on a non-responsive US Government. (RIGHT)
I believe in the need for Universal Health Care/Socialized Medicine. (LEFT)
I haven't got a clue how to make the point above work. (CENTER?)
I am firmly against the war in Iraq as totally unnecessary. (LEFT)
I am firmly for the war in Afghanistan as totally necessary. (IGNORED BY BOTH THE RIGHT AND LEFT)
I believe that both the Democrats and the Republicans (and I do not mean the general populace, but the hierarchy of these parties) do not have the best interests of the Middle Class in mind. I feel that they would rather see the Middle Class fade into obscurity. (LIBERTARIAN?)
I believe that the two-party system is perfect for the politicians of the US. It allows one party to benefit by perpetuating poverty in the US, and the other party to perpetuate less-government (meaning less interference with Corporate interests) in the US. (CONSPIRACY THEORY~!)

Sorry to tell you, but you are WAY left.

[lawrnk]

I typically ask what the most important issue is, to them.
After we get passed the 'Change' garbage and get to what kind of change, a couple of things come to the forefront.
Gas prices:
War in Iraq:
Universal Health-care:
Global Warming:
RKBA:
Supreme Court Justices:
The Middle Class or the Working Poor:

I was looking at the issues brought up above and realized that I am what some of the media-pundits now refer to as the "mushy-middle". I lean right on some issues and left on others. This means that in general I find it hard to be comfortable with any candidate that is out there.

I believe in a woman's right to choose. (LEFT)
I could care less about folks sexual preference. (LEFT)
I don't object to same-sex marriage. I would imagine it is as troublesome as my own past marriages. (LEFT)
I believe that Global Warming is a naturally reoccurring phenomenon. (RIGHT)
I believe that we need Nuclear Energy as a supplement to other forms of energy. (RIGHT)
I do not think that drilling in Alaska or offshore (US) will lead to lower gas prices for the consumer. I do believe that it will simply move some of the oil monies around to other rich folks. (CENTER?)
I believe in the Individual RKBA and the responsibility to put a check on a non-responsive US Government. (RIGHT)
I believe in the need for Universal Health Care/Socialized Medicine. (LEFT)
I haven't got a clue how to make the point above work. (CENTER?)
I am firmly against the war in Iraq as totally unnecessary. (LEFT)
I am firmly for the war in Afghanistan as totally necessary. (IGNORED BY BOTH THE RIGHT AND LEFT)
I believe that both the Democrats and the Republicans (and I do not mean the general populace, but the hierarchy of these parties) do not have the best interests of the Middle Class in mind. I feel that they would rather see the Middle Class fade into obscurity. (LIBERTARIAN?)
I believe that the two-party system is perfect for the politicians of the US. It allows one party to benefit by perpetuating poverty in the US, and the other party to perpetuate less-government (meaning less interference with Corporate interests) in the US. (CONSPIRACY THEORY~!)

I'm pseudo off topic, but I suppose I can T/J my own thread. Are you in support of partial birth abortion? I ask, simply because support of abortion appears rare on this forum.

[Liberty]

I'm pseudo off topic, but I suppose I can T/J my own thread. Are you in support of partial birth abortion? I ask, simply because support of abortion appears rare on this forum.

I don't think its as rare as it may seem. Its a banned emotional topic here. Its also not always a simple black and white issue for some for. It's not a topic that can be discussed calmly on this forum. I think of it as (Reasonable Restrictions X 1 Meg.) No discussion here will result in any reasonable conclusion.

I hope this isn't another thread that gets banned.

[KD5NRH]

I believe in the need for Universal Health Care/Socialized Medicine. (LEFT)

I believe in the need for consistency: if the right to life means that taxpayers should bear the cost, then the right to bear arms means the taxpayers should also provide firearms and ammunition to every law abiding citizen.

[kd5zex]

I believe in the need for Universal Health Care/Socialized Medicine. (LEFT)

I believe in the need for consistency: if the right to life means that taxpayers should bear the cost, then the right to bear arms means the taxpayers should also provide firearms and ammunition to every law abiding citizen.

I second that. Great way of putting it.

[SCone]

Obama on Imus, "There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group."

Obama on Mac, " We can't afford to be divided by race. We can't afford to be divided by religion, or by region or class. Or by gender. That means, by the way, Bernie you got to clean up your act. This is a family affair. … I'm just messing with you."

[Bart]

I believe in the need for consistency: if the right to life means that taxpayers should bear the cost, then the right to bear arms means the taxpayers should also provide firearms and ammunition to every law abiding citizen.

Don't forget my newspaper and television station bought with your tax dollars.