Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
 
AirportSeven
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:08 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:01 am



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 81):
I just have not seen the rabid racism on the GOP side that you see. I guess I dont have as sensitive race detectors like you. Frankly the only reference's to race have been coming from the Dem's .... lots of them.

You can't see it, but you can sure hear it here, right about :55.

I don't think it was a Dem, either.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:24 am



Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 154):
You can't see it, but you can sure hear it here, right about :55.

I don't think it was a Dem, either.

At this point, I am not even surprised. It's just sad that you still have people like that in this day & age. What's even more disappointing is the Palin doesn't seem to be bothered by it at all.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:37 am



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 147):

Racism exists on both sides. I don't think it's fair to stereotype McCain supporters as racist. McCain has always taken great pains to condemn anyone who was out of line. The best one was when he grabbed the microphone from some woman that was talking crap about Obama being Muslim or something.

Good summary. Disagree on the issues but both campaigns have been careful not to go down that low to revert to the use of racial slurs or any other type of personal attacks. Supporters do so, unfortunately, but the candidates can only control their followers so much.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 148):
Really what does it matter , if we had a idiot running it for the last 8 years .. then another idiot shouldn't matter to you.

Actually, it looks like it doesn't matter who wins this thing, we are going to end up with an idiot in the White House for the next 4 years. Our only hope is that whoever wins selects a strong and experienced cabinet.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 18130
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:47 am



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 156):
Actually, it looks like it doesn't matter who wins this thing, we are going to end up with an idiot in the White House for the next 4 years. Our only hope is that whoever wins selects a strong and experienced cabinet.

What I saw this morning on CNN Int'l confirms only that. They showed clips from Obama talking about the need for both healthcare and military strength - how ya gonna pay for that buddy?? All the money we need is going to magically slide down the utopian rainbow just when we need it?? They also showed a live feed from a McCain rally in Pennsylvania - "Obama's gonna raise Joe the Plumber's taxes, Obama's campaign took political swipes at Joe the Plumber" - you still on Joe, Johnny boy?? Joe is friendly with Obama number one, and number two, your Obama tax scare propaganda is 100% lies - why don't you talk about changes you have to make to YOUR plan Johnny boy??

Same shit, day in, day out.
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:49 am



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 156):
Good summary. Disagree on the issues but both campaigns have been careful not to go down that low to revert to the use of racial slurs or any other type of personal attacks.

I agree.

And I am also done with this thread .... I have voted and I know why I voted for my candidates . That is all we can do as citizens , and if the opposition wins we should continue to try our best to do what is right. I have dedicated myself that if the other team wins I am going to do all I can to support the President and not be so divisive.

And as far as the race issue goes ,,, we should all do what my Dad taught me .. see the world as customers. If everyone is a potential customer then you dont worry about race .

Good luck
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Posts: 2974
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:03 am

It now appears that Senator John McCain might lose his home state of Arizona - according to Arizona Republican insiders!!!  rotfl   rotfl 

"This is shaping up to be the worst landslide for a Republican since (former Arizona Senator Barry) Goldwater. I realize the irony in that," said one distraught Arizona Republican operative who asked for anonymity to speak frankly. "If I were to place a bet today, I'd say McCain loses" his home state."

Source: http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/freestory.cfm?id=9704
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:17 am



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 158):
I have voted and I know why I voted for my candidates

More power to you.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 158):
And as far as the race issue goes ,,, we should all do what my Dad taught me .. see the world as customers. If everyone is a potential customer then you dont worry about race .

Or gender. I was just watching O'Reilly and he showed some sick prank that they pulled in Hollywood for Halloween: basically they hanged a doll made to look like Sarah Palin. Disgusting beyond words. Disagree with a candidate based on ideas and positions but to take it to that level is just childish. I only hope that the morons who did it are not old enough to vote.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 157):
They showed clips from Obama talking about the need for both healthcare and military strength - how ya gonna pay for that buddy?? All the money we need is going to magically slide down the utopian rainbow just when we need it??

This is a good read on both candidate's plans as President:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/news/economy/spending/index.htm

Basically the way things stand right now both platforms would only contribute to our national debt, ensuring that my niece (who is 7) will be paying for this rubbish when she's in her 30's.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 157):
why don't you talk about changes you have to make to YOUR plan Johnny boy??

Neither campaign is willing to lay out their plans for the world to see. They just had bits of Palin and Obama on Hannity and Colmes and both of them spent their time attacking the other side without talking about their OWN positions or explaining their plans.

Pretty much everyone I talk to either is completely tuned out of this or their only concern is the economy. Meanwhile the Republicans are talking about an Obama tape from 2001 and the Democrats are talking about Palin's wardrobe. Is this for real?
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:26 am



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 156):
Actually, it looks like it doesn't matter who wins this thing, we are going to end up with an idiot in the White House for the next 4 years. Our only hope is that whoever wins selects a strong and experienced cabinet.

This is true. Unfortunately an idiot is not the best person to select intelligent people.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 158):
And I am also done with this thread .... I have voted and I know why I voted for my candidates .

Yep, voted last week, went to EDI over the weekend, I'm done with this election. No matter who we end up with the only difference will be the amount of debt they can rack up. Until Congress and a President figure out that it doesn't matter if you increase revenues, whether by cutting taxes for everyone or taxing the hell out of a select few until they are dry, unless you are willing to cut on the spending side as well, then nothing will change.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:08 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 161):
unless you are willing to cut on the spending side as well, then nothing will change.

Just as a matter of interest, RJdxer - if you were president, where would you make said cuts?
 
AirportSeven
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:08 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:37 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 155):

At this point, I am not even surprised. It's just sad that you still have people like that in this day & age. What's even more disappointing is the Palin doesn't seem to be bothered by it at all.

She stumbled for just a moment, then steadied out. I think she was asking herself, "Do I call her out on that, or do I just let it go?". And then she just let it go.

I agree that it's sad there are people out there like that, and scary, too. Are they getting more comfortable with acting out at Palin rallies?
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:00 am



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 162):
if you were president, where would you make said cuts?

It has to start with ear marks, that is, pork spending projects. Congress just has to make their constituents understand somehow that the days of looking to the Federal government for grant money or project money are over. We just can't afford it. SS funds have to be taken out of the general budget and put back in their own separate account so we can see just how far over the income line we are spending. Entitlement spending has to be visited and reworked. Here is where I do agree that if you are rich and you don't need public services, you should not depending on them. Unless we get that type of spending under control no amount of tax increase will matter in a few years because it will never be enough. Education. There is absolutely no mandate in the Constitution anywhere that states that the Federal government should have anything to do with education. That department could be eliminated entirely or cut back to an information gathering and distribution office only. Foriegn aid could be cut to many countries that take our money then do nothing but bad mouth us. Virtually every Congressional office could be cut back as well as the White House and the executive branch as a whole. Private industry has increased productivity while not increasing payroll in many instances. Now it's time for government to do the same. If the unions don't like it, bust them.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:20 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 164):
It has to start with ear marks, that is, pork spending projects

Do you have good information on how serious a problem this is? I don't like it (pork barrel spending), but I suspect you're falling victim to McCain/Palin propaganda here. Quick research on my part shows that hard and soft earmarks in 2007 accounted for 23 billion of the 2.8 trillion dollar budget or 0.82% (not highly confident in these numbers, but it's what I've got at the moment). Yet you listed it first as the thing that should be fixed.

Do you realize how easily we could cut 23 billion from defense without actually affecting troop safety or our ability to defend ourselves?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 164):
Entitlement spending has to be visited and reworked. Here is where I do agree that if you are rich and you don't need public services, you should not depending on them.

Are you suggesting that people who paid into SS their whole lives shouldn't get money unless they need it? That sounds a bit like wealth redistribution, eh?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 164):
There is absolutely no mandate in the Constitution anywhere that states that the Federal government should have anything to do with education.

Are their any first world nations that don't fund education? There are tons of things not mandated by the constitution that recieve funding. The constitution didn't mandate attacking Iraq.
 
Zentraedi
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:58 am



Quoting Superfly (Reply 145):


It's really not worth trying to argue that random loonies are representative of the whole. Rather, you should take note of how the actual candidates respond to such acts.

For example, a certain candidate might try to down play the severity of say abortion clinic bombings, or give tacit approval to racial epithets uttered during a rally...
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:55 am



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 163):
Quick research on my part shows that hard and soft earmarks in 2007 accounted for 23 billion of the 2.8 trillion dollar budget or 0.82% (not highly confident in these numbers, but it's what I've got at the moment). Yet you listed it first as the thing that should be fixed.

Hmm, even at this distance we have worked out that Pork is more spectacular than numerically important. Wonder what that tells us?

Foreign aid cut only to countries that bad mouth the US, so Israel is OK and it is the largest, who exactly did you have in mind Rj?

Ah yes, bust them. That will save a great deal of money. You are not getting too many practical suggestions for your term as POTUS Stuckin. We will have to hope that the Christmas season proves stimulating.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 163):
The constitution didn't mandate attacking Iraq.

Now that could be worth thinking about. But Stuckin, a clear and present danger, what can you be thinking of??  sarcastic   stirthepot 
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:20 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 162):
It has to start with ear marks

As I understand it,' earmarks' are normally necessary because few presidents have outright control of both Houses of Congress. So 'inducements' - not to be confused with bribes  Smile - have to be offered to members of the opposing party to get them to vote in favour of whatever the president wants to get through.

So if - as seems to be increasingly likely - the Democrats achieve a commanding majority in both houses of Congress this time, earmarks won't be necessary for at least the next four years.

So if you really consider getting rid of earmarks to be the first priority, RJdxer, looks as if your best option is a straight Democratic vote?  Smile
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:25 pm



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 163):
Do you have good information on how serious a problem this is?

It's not a serious problem, it's a start. It shows determination.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 163):
Yet you listed it first as the thing that should be fixed.

Because in any heavy debt situation the best thing to do is start with the smallest and work your way up. Taking your figure at face value is fine, but it's not the total value of savings that can be realized either. It's more like ordering the pizza on Friday night. That alone might not get you out of debt but it certainly helps in its own small way. It beats depending on a pay raise.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 163):
Do you realize how easily we could cut 23 billion from defense without actually affecting troop safety or our ability to defend ourselves?

Sure, we did that and more in the 90's and we are still paying for it today. The Constitution specifically says the Federal government is responsible for providing for the common defense.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 163):
Are you suggesting that people who paid into SS their whole lives shouldn't get money unless they need it?

No, and if you re-read you will see where I say separate SS from the general budget and do not list it in entitlement spending. Social Security is not a "public service" as in medicare, medicaid, government housing, etc. it is basically a government sponsored annuity. On the other hand if there were a voluntary program where wealthy people who don't need SS could choose to opt out of the payout to leave more for people who do need it I'd be all for that. If I could opt out and take that money I pay in tax to invest myself I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 163):
The constitution didn't mandate attacking Iraq.

Here we go again. When we have nothing productive to provide we fall back on simple minded moronic cliches right? So I guess you are in the crowd that says keep spending damn the debt! Government can do it all?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 165):
Foreign aid cut only to countries that bad mouth the US, so Israel is OK and it is the largest, who exactly did you have in mind Rj?

Tops on the list, the UN. Get out of New York and find another home. And it's not just countries that bad mouth us but that's a good place to start.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 166):
So if - as seems to be increasingly likely - the Democrats achieve a commanding majority in both houses of Congress this time, earmarks won't be necessary for at least the next four years.

Either you are joking or, oh my, you don't know how our government works do you?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:56 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 167):
Either you are joking or, oh my, you don't know how our government works do you?

Very possibly I don't, RJdixer. After all, the US governmental/electoral system is somewhat out-dated, having been devised in the 18th. Century and not changed much since - except that, thankfully, all 'other persons' are now able to have their votes counted, rather than only three-fifths of them........  Smile

But, as I see it, the prospect facing the US public is either a total victory by the Democrats (with not only the President being a Democrat, but the Democrats also having decisive majorities in both Houses of Congress) or a narrow Republican win (with the President being a Republican, but the Democrats holding a majority in both Houses).

That seems to ME to indicate that, unless the Democrats achieve a decisive victory, 'earmarks' will be the 'order of the day' - as President McCain struggles to gain enough Democrat votes to get anything at all that he wants to do through Congress?

But if I've misunderstood your antiquated (and, to my mind, fundamentally un-democratic) 'small 'r'' republican system of government, please put me right.  Smile
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:59 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 167):
When we have nothing productive to provide we fall back on simple minded moronic cliches right?

If you fall back on the thought that only things mandated by the constitution should be funded, I'll keep digging out such gems as Iraq.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 167):
So I guess you are in the crowd that says keep spending damn the debt! Government can do it all?

How do you figure that? I'm guessing that you're the one who voted for Bush who has grown the debt and deficit so magnificently.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 167):
Sure, we did that and more in the 90's and we are still paying for it today.

I assure you that there are several entire programs which could be cut with no impact. I'm not talking about troops or bases. At the very least, cut overtime for military programs at defense contractors and have strict monetary penalties for late delivery.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:13 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 168):
That seems to ME to indicate that, unless the Democrats achieve a decisive victory, 'earmarks' will be the 'order of the day'

Unfortunately for our country as time has progressed the constituents have come, in part, to base how well a Representative, or a Senator, is doing based on how much "pork" they bring home in the way of government funded projects and grants. When one party has not only a majority, but filibuster proof control of the Senate, which the democrats had in the Carter and Johnson administrations, that's when the pork machine goes out of control. There is nobody to effectively say no. So, since the Democratic party leaders, who ran in part in 2006 on the line that they would do away with earmark spending, and have not done so nor even slowed it down, I see nothing to say that they won't increase the amounts spent to help insure re-election. President Obama can rant all he wants about going line by line through the budget but when Pelosi and Reid tell him is he wants any part of his vision passed he will have to play along his hand will be forced. Unlike Johnson but just like Carter, no one on the Hill owes him any favors, he has no arms to twist, and he has no idea of which closets have any skeletons in them.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:26 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 167):
The Constitution specifically says the Federal government is responsible for providing for the common defense.

This is still stuck in my craw.

You realize that the constitution also says that "We the people" will "promote the general welfare... ... to ourselves and our posterity."

By "welfare" the meaning is "health, happiness, or prosperity."

I get the feeling that you think the government should be about 8 people in a tuff-shed who do nothing other than fund the military.

I'd say taking care of problems we have in our health care system are mandated by the constitution more directly than invading Iraq was.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20081028...ldebtsendingmanyoverfinancialbrink

data from the Commonwealth Fund puts 41 percent of working-age adults -- 72 million people -- as having medical debt or having a problem paying medical bills, up from 34 percent -- or 58 million people -- in 2005.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:41 pm



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 169):
If you fall back on the thought that only things mandated by the constitution should be funded

If you can name something else that is go ahead.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 169):
I'll keep digging out such gems as Iraq.

Since you know that other than defense, which is mandated, everything else is discretionary.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 169):
I'm guessing that you're the one who voted for Bush who has grown the debt and deficit so magnificently.

Yes, and you would also know that I have been very vocal about the disappointment he and the GOP led Congresses from 2001 to 2006 have been for me in the area of fiscal responsibility.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 169):
I assure you that there are several entire programs which could be cut with no impact.

OK General.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 171):
You realize that the constitution also says that "We the people" will "promote the general welfare... ... to ourselves and our posterity."

You also realize that anything you name under that is an inference? There is not one word that specifies health care or any other entitlement funded program.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 171):
By "welfare" the meaning is "health, happiness, or prosperity."

If you can quote the Constitution or any founder that said that please do. Any inference to "health" meaning national health care is just that inference. How is the government to decide or provide "happiness" for me? How does it know when or when I'm not happy. I'm not happy paying taxes, what is it going to do about that? "Prosperity"? That is an individuals responsibility. If you are claiming it is the governments then Cuba must be your role model since the Soviet Union does not exist as a workers paradise anymore.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 171):
I get the feeling that you think the government should be about 8 people in a tuff-shed who do nothing other than fund the military.

I get the feeling you think the government should be the be all and end all. That somehow the government can some how make things "fair" which is ridiculous. As long as people are born with free will and free choice life will never be fair.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 171):
I'd say taking care of problems we have in our health care system are mandated by the constitution more directly than invading Iraq was.

"Taking care" of the health problems, as you see them, in this country will cost far more in blood and treasure than Iraq ever did or will. Take a look at Medicare and how it has increased beyond all conception over the years as just one example.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:41 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 170):
When one party has not only a majority, but filibuster proof control of the Senate, which the democrats had in the Carter and Johnson administrations, that's when the pork machine goes out of control.

Cheers, RJdxer - never saw it that way before. So there's pork-barrelling either way - either because the party in general charge has too much power, or it has too little?

I'd strongly recommend that you guys consider adopting a system of parliamentary democracy. Not only does it provide that the parliament can throw out a prime minister who really stuffs up within 24 hours - it ALSO makes it clear that the monarch, not the PM, is the head of the Commonwealth armed forces.

Mind you, there's room for dispute on the latter point. As the (un-elected) battery 'joker,' I once asked the BSM whether, if he ever ordered me to do it, I'd have to shoot the Prime Minister. He was a good quick-witted bloke - and he saw a 'sprog' like me coming.

So he said, "Depends. If I ever did, and it didn't work out, we'd probably both be in trouble. But if, after I'd given you a direct order, and after all I've taught you, you effing MISSED the bastard, you'd be the ONLY bugger in this here army with any problems. 'Conduct to the bloody prejudice'........."
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 12121
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:31 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 167):
Sure, we did that and more in the 90's and we are still paying for it today. The Constitution specifically says the Federal government is responsible for providing for the common defense.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats seemed to feel that downsizing the military was the right thing to do, at the right time, in the mid 90's. Neither side can be absolved.
Also, I would ask you what our fore fathers meant by "provide for the common defense". I would submit that it did not involve offensive actions in foreign countries. It was to provide for defense of these United States and that can be done by alternate means to what is being done now.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 168):
Very possibly I don't, RJdixer. After all, the US governmental/electoral system is somewhat out-dated, having been devised in the 18th. Century and not changed much since - except that, thankfully, all 'other persons' are now able to have their votes counted, rather than only three-fifths of them........

Uhh, I would leave that one be if I were you. I believe Australia has its own issues with Aboriginal rights, land, and "Stolen Generations". These issues are touchy in their "home" countries and people who do not live there should generally avoid poking at them.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 167):
No, and if you re-read you will see where I say separate SS from the general budget and do not list it in entitlement spending. Social Security is not a "public service" as in medicare, medicaid, government housing, etc. it is basically a government sponsored annuity. On the other hand if there were a voluntary program where wealthy people who don't need SS could choose to opt out of the payout to leave more for people who do need it I'd be all for that. If I could opt out and take that money I pay in tax to invest myself I'd do it in a heartbeat.

A private system would have to be phased in over about 20 years so as not to destroy/severely disrupt the financial markets and to allow the current obligations to be paid for appropriately. You can say that we should have all the money sitting in an account waiting, that the funds shouldn't have been raided but that not the way things are so you have to account for it.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 171):
You realize that the constitution also says that "We the people" will "promote the general welfare... ... to ourselves and our posterity."

By "welfare" the meaning is "health, happiness, or prosperity."
.....

I'd say taking care of problems we have in our health care system are mandated by the constitution more directly than .....

I do tend to agree that if overseas "defensive (a good offense is the best defense)" operations can be justified by this part of the Constitution, then some form of universal health care could also be justified.

Tugg
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:41 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 173):
So there's pork-barrelling either way - either because the party in general charge has too much power, or it has too little?

The way to look at it is volume. When you have one party in charge the volume goes way up.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 173):
it ALSO makes it clear that the monarch, not the PM, is the head of the Commonwealth armed forces.

I have to ask....explain Winston Churchill or did the King abdicate war powers to him?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 174):
Both the Republicans and the Democrats seemed to feel that downsizing the military was the right thing to do, at the right time, in the mid 90's. Neither side can be absolved.

That's not really true. 1992-94 saw a severe downsizing, much more than the Bush 41 administration had planned on. President Clinton balanced the budget from the Executive Branch side on the backs of the military. Republicans were looking to cut social programs and only succeeded in reforming welfare.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 174):
Also, I would ask you what our fore fathers meant by "provide for the common defense". I would submit that it did not involve offensive actions in foreign countries.

I would submit that you are substituting the Constitution with political policy. The current war in Iraq is a policy started by the current administration based on assumed threats that turned out not to be true. That does not change the way the Constitution reads.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 174):
A private system would have to be phased in over about 20 years

Agreed and we have wasted at least that much time over the past 20.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 174):
You can say that we should have all the money sitting in an account waiting, that the funds shouldn't have been raided but that not the way things are so you have to account for it.

Agreed and it is a huge part of the national debt whose time of payment grows nearer every day.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 174):
I do tend to agree that if overseas "defensive (a good offense is the best defense)" operations can be justified by this part of the Constitution, then some form of universal health care could also be justified.

And you would also be inferring that. You cannot justify health care as a Constitutional right based on the fact that the current political leader went to war, with the approval of Congress. You are talking apples and oranges.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:57 pm



Quoting AirportSeven (Reply 161):

She stumbled for just a moment, then steadied out. I think she was asking herself, "Do I call her out on that, or do I just let it go?". And then she just let it go.

And she DIDN'T call her out. She just let it go. Even John McCain stood up to a supporter who spoke about Obama being a Muslim. That's because, while I disagree with John McCain's policies, I believe that he is fundamentally a good, honest, well-intentioned man.

So the fact that she didn't denounce a hateful comment like that was very telling.
 
User avatar
stasisLAX
Posts: 2974
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:04 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:06 pm

In conversation with Politico Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless “diva” description, calling Sarah Palin “a whack job.”

Source: http://www.politico.com/playbook/1008/playbook476.html

I think the McCain aides are abandoning a sinking (losing) ship, and are trying to place the blame squarely on Governor Palin's shoulders. Ugly situation!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:08 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 178):
So the fact that she didn't denounce a hateful comment like that was very telling.

...and something I have always suspected about Sarah Palin all along.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 178):
Even John McCain stood up to a supporter who spoke about Obama being a Muslim.

No the supporter thought that Obama was an "Arab".
John McCain did a lousy job in correcting that lady. Even though Obama is not an Arab, there is nothing wrong with being an Arab.
As I said before, John McCain should have took that as an opportunity to educate his followers the difference between a Arab and a Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XmerZEyHE
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:25 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 178):
I believe that he is fundamentally a good, honest, well-intentioned man.

You might want to take a look at this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdxugg9Q18o
 
scrubbsywg
Posts: 1097
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:35 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:31 pm

honestly, is the mccain camp using joe the plumber(in person form) at campaign events, rather than just mentioning him in speeches? Guess so:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...ks-claim-obama-bring-death-israel/

He said voting for obama would lead to the death of israel. I honestly can't believe they are using a joe the plumber in campaign events. If rumors are that mccain didn't vet palin properly, is using joe the plumber any better?

Even the anchor on fox news said after an interview with joe that "I just want to make this 100 percent perfectly clear -- Barack Obama has said repeatedly and demonstrated repeatedly that Israel will always be a friend of the United States, no matter what happens once he becomes President of the United States. His words"--Shepard Smith after interviewing joe the plumber.


But anyway, i think this election will be a lot closer than most polls are showing. A lot of undecideds still out there, and they will likely lead one way or the other.

I really think the socialism spin is going to do some damage to obama, but we will see if it will make a difference. I really don't believe 'spreading the wealth' is a good thing and i generally lean a little left. I made myself what i am today because i chose to work, however i never had a 'hard life'--i grew up in a complete household, wasn't poor(although for 4 years my father was unemployed when i was a young teenager)--i would say lower middle class. I dont know what it is like to grow up with the lure of gangs, drugs, and get beat by my parents or live in a broken household. However, i dont think giving these people extra money is going to change much. Giving them an extra 1000 a year isn't going to change their life for the better, IMO. It may help a little, but we have to help them see that education can lead them to prosperity.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:37 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 178):
I believe that he is fundamentally a good, honest, well-intentioned man.

I agree that at one time he sure was. I believe that in his quest to in this election he sold his soul to the devil. The sad thing is he will always be known for running one of the most negative and hateful campaigns on record and not for his years of service in the Senate. IMHO - he wanted to win so bad he through out any values he held dear to his heart and ran with whatever his handlers told him he needed to so to win this race, whether he agreed or not? Just me take on it.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:46 pm



Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 183):
The sad thing is he will always be known for running one of the most negative and hateful campaigns on record and not for his years of service in the Senate

Funny how Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43 both times have had the same accusation leveled against them by liberals and democrats. But dare to suggest that calling a United States Senator a geezer, or a sitting Governor "gidget", calling a sitting President a "chimp" to name just a few derogatory names in recent past used by democratic party members and liberals as hateful and oh how the crying and whining begins.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:57 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 174):
Also, I would ask you what our fore fathers meant by "provide for the common defense". I would submit that it did not involve offensive actions in foreign countries.

In 1801, under President Jefferson, the US went to war with the Barbary states in North Africa, and ended up invading Tripoli (US Marines - the origin of the Marine Hymn).

If Jefferson, who basically wrote the Constitution, had no trouble with that, I suggest you reconsider. The Constitution clearly means for "Common Defence" to include defending our interests overseas.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 174):
Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 171):
You realize that the constitution also says that "We the people" will "promote the general welfare... ... to ourselves and our posterity."

By "welfare" the meaning is "health, happiness, or prosperity."
.....

I'd say taking care of problems we have in our health care system are mandated by the constitution more directly than .....

I do tend to agree that if overseas "defensive (a good offense is the best defense)" operations can be justified by this part of the Constitution, then some form of universal health care could also be justified.

Stupid argument. The GENERAL welfare. That applies to everyone - on a state level - i.e. the health of the state as a whole. It has nothing to do with redistribution of income, or taking care of the specific health deficiencies of the individual. Obama even mentions that as being the fundemental flaw of the Constitution in that 2001 interview that's making the rounds of the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 155):
Joe is friendly with Obama number one, and number two, your Obama tax scare propaganda is 100% lies

Joe is campaigning with McCain, and Obama's patterns of clear redistributive socialism are becoming more and more clear, with the 2001 interview, his own statements to Joe, parts of his own books, and the friends he used to keep.

Anyone voting for Obama simply because they are mad at the republicans and who think that voting democrat is no different from voting for Clinton or Kerry is in for a big shock if he wins. Clinton, Kerry, and JFK are rabid rightwingers compared to Obama.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 181):
You might want to take a look at this clip.

That was completely and utterly debunked by the Secret Service. You should know better than trust Kieth Olberman, the worst excuse for a journalist ever.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/brea...ill_him_allegation_unfounded_.html
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:58 pm



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 184):
Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 183):
The sad thing is he will always be known for running one of the most negative and hateful campaigns on record and not for his years of service in the Senate

Funny how Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43 both times have had the same accusation leveled against them by liberals and democrats. But dare to suggest that calling a United States Senator a geezer, or a sitting Governor "gidget", calling a sitting President a "chimp" to name just a few derogatory names in recent past used by democratic party members and liberals as hateful and oh how the crying and whining begins.

I am not saying that either party is guilt free that is for sure. Though McCain and Palin, A.K.A. Geezer and Gidget have shown there true colors by allowing people at there rallies to promote hateful speech and only stopping it by McCain when the issue was getting a whole lot of air play. Even when McCain stopped it he only gave a lame reply when he could have stepped up to the plate and given and answer he and everyone could have been proud of.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:07 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 185):
That was completely and utterly debunked by the Secret Service.

but this one wasn't;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRLljAMvO2s
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22379
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:12 am

McCain has a problem. A big one. He got an endorsement. A BIG endorsement by a very influential group in American politics.

He got an endorsement by Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda also endorsed Bush four years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html?em

Quote:
John McCain isn’t boasting about a new endorsement, one of the very, very few he has received from overseas. It came a few days ago:

“Al Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election,” read a commentary on a password-protected Islamist Web site that is closely linked to Al Qaeda and often disseminates the group’s propaganda.

Now, you might be tempted to say that they're just playing games. They're using reverse psychology because they really want Obama.

Read his argument. I think they want McCain. I don't think they're playing games. I think they're dead serious. Because while Al-Qaeda is many terrible, horrible things, they are usually very honest.

See, one of the reasons Al Qaeda benefits from U.S. military action in the Mid-East is that little boys who grow up and watch people getting blown to bits grow up to be angry young men. And that is what Al Qaeda is. A bunch of very angry men.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:16 am



Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 186):
Though McCain and Palin, A.K.A. Geezer and Gidget have shown there true colors by allowing people at there rallies to promote hateful speech and only stopping it by McCain when the issue was getting a whole lot of air play.

Of course the Obama/Biden campaign has gone way out of there way to silence groups like MoveOn.org that do the very samething but just don't get a much reporting do they.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 186):
Even when McCain stopped it he only gave a lame reply when he could have stepped up to the plate and given and answer he and everyone could have been proud of.

An yet right here in this thread what have you done?
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:26 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 185):
In 1801, under President Jefferson, the US went to war with the Barbary states in North Africa, and ended up invading Tripoli (US Marines - the origin of the Marine Hymn).

I would suggest that this wasn't an offensive action, but needed to protect American shipping interests and to free American sailors held as captives/slaves...
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:31 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 188):
He got an endorsement by Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda also endorsed Bush four years ago.

Actually, they endorsed neither, and Kerry blames them for his loss.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4222647.stm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 188):
See, one of the reasons Al Qaeda benefits from U.S. military action in the Mid-East is that little boys who grow up and watch people getting blown to bits grow up to be angry young men. And that is what Al Qaeda is. A bunch of very angry men.

Right. Nearly all the 911 haijackers were sons of well-off families who never saw any such thing. They are driven by religious and ideology.

And yes, it is reverse psychology. Obama has stated his plans to gut US defences, and whatever remains of the Patriot Act will go away. His stated positions against radical islam and terrorist states are stupid. As the son of a Muslim, they see him as a muslim himself (no matter what his actual beliefs are). Of course they want Obama to win.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 18130
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:34 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 185):
Anyone voting for Obama simply because they are mad at the republicans and who think that voting democrat is no different from voting for Clinton or Kerry is in for a big shock if he wins. Clinton, Kerry, and JFK are rabid rightwingers compared to Obama.

Every Washington insider who has been interviewed over the last month has admitted that regardless of your take on Obama, if elected he will be forced to govern from a more moderate stance. The primary reason given by any Republicans who have indicated support for him is much less his policies and more their confidence in his ability to lead from a basis of intellectual fortitude and consensus-building. They may very well be wrong, but ideology has nothing to do with it - not this time, anyway.

We shall certainly see. I'm not optimistic either way.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:37 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 191):
were sons of well-off families who never saw any such thing. They are driven by religious and ideology.

Kind of like Dubya.  scratchchin 
Oh wait, those hijackers were going by faulty intelligence.  Yeah sure

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 191):
Of course they want Obama to win.

They don't give a rats @$$ who wins!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:49 am



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 192):
Every Washington insider who has been interviewed over the last month has admitted that regardless of your take on Obama, if elected he will be forced to govern from a more moderate stance.

You trust Washington insiders to tell the truth???

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 192):
their confidence in his ability to lead from a basis of intellectual fortitude and consensus-building

Intellectual fortitude from a man who believes in wealth redistribution, who did not know his priest was a nut for 20 years, and was not bothered at all associating with an unrepentant terrorist.

And consensus-building from somebody who has no history of any such thing, and is in fact susch a hardline liberal he is rated further left than that self-professed socialist senator from Vermont.

Batting oh-for-2 there, Aaron.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:22 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 185):
Joe is campaigning with McCain

I'm not sure if that's a smart move. FOX news just reported that McCain's campaign is not happy with everything that he's saying (like alluding to the destruction of Israel if Obama wins). McCain needs to deliver a positive message right now, and the Plumber is not doing that, instead he's using the tired scare tactics that McCain has been using all along about socialism and redistribution of wealth. Again, McCain needs to get his message across without sounding too negative; most news channels agree that the negative tone of his campaign is driving away undecided voters.

Another issue that the McCain campaign will have to address is the extreme religious right. FOX ran a lengthy report on several extreme groups (mostly Evangelical but also a Jewish one) who are sending letters and advertisement to voters equating an Obama presidency with the end of times and the Anti-Christ. They also tried to use scare tactics telling voters that Obama will destroy the tradition of marriage (not sure how since he's against gay marriage), that he'll allow kids to watch porn in school, and that he'll get rid of most churches. FOX called these groups ridiculous, not the least because Obama is actually a very religious person. I highly doubt that McCain himself associates with these wackos (unlike Obama who spent 20 years in a controversial church led by one) but his campaign should set the record straight and distance itself from them. 4 years ago traditional religious values did get out a lot of people to vote, but this year the economy should be reason enough to get them out. The only thing these groups do is taint the image of the candidate.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 184):
just a few derogatory names in recent past used by democratic party members and liberals as hateful and oh how the crying and whining begins.

RJ I'd be careful sticking my neck out for either party to be honest. Both have run a campaign based on lies, personal attacks, unrealistic promises, and by avoiding to tackle the real issues at hand. Neither side can claim a higher moral ground, and it's a bit pointless to try to defend them. Furthermore, both sides have succumbed to name calling ("bitter old man", "terrorist", "that one") in a manner which I didn't expect after both of them said that they would run a different kind of campaign. Perhaps by different they meant that Obama would let the press do the campaigning for him and McCain would turn to scare tactics. Classy!  Sad

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 191):
and whatever remains of the Patriot Act will go away.

Really? I haven't heard that one, but if true that would be a very positive step forward for this nation. I'm all for national security within the boundaries of human rights and civil liberties/justice. The Patriot Act (which was supported by the majority of Congress at the time, including BOTH Democrats and Republicans) went too far beyond the rights afforded to us as private citizens. Somehow I doubt that a new Congress would touch it, though.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:35 am



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 195):
RJ I'd be careful sticking my neck out for either party to be honest. Both have run a campaign based on lies, personal attacks, unrealistic promises, and by avoiding to tackle the real issues at hand

No, I agree both sides do it. My point, and it is supported just by what Luv2Fly said is that when it comes to finger pointing liberals and democrats in general can dish it out but boy does the whining and crying begin when it comes back at them. Luv2Fly didn't say that anyone who uses the term geezer or gidget or who called President Bush were hateful, go figure.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 18130
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:58 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 194):

You trust Washington insiders to tell the truth???

Are you calling people like David Gergen untrustworthy?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 194):

Intellectual fortitude from a man who believes in wealth redistribution, who did not know his priest was a nut for 20 years, and was not bothered at all associating with an unrepentant terrorist.

And consensus-building from somebody who has no history of any such thing, and is in fact susch a hardline liberal he is rated further left than that self-professed socialist senator from Vermont.

I didn't say it - I was quoting various people who have opined on television in the last week - take your message to them (some from the Republican party, mind you), not me. Conveniently you excluded my personal opinion at the end of the post  Yeah sure Your convenient selection of quoting is consistently annoying.

In any case, personally the Ayers association is a mark against the guy, as is having been a member of Wright's congregation. But those aren't the reasons I didn't vote for Obama, as they have nothing to do with the Presidency. About as much as Keating's friendship with McCain anyway. Both men have kept questionable personal associations.

The wealth redistribution line is just dumb at this point. It's a difference of opinion with no as-yet proven factual preference for success one way or the other. Obama may be more honest about his flawed views on it, but he's really not any different from any past President, since nobody has opposed progressive taxation in over 50 years. Didn't Reagan introduce the Earned Income Tax Credit? What do you call that?
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:16 am



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 196):
No, I agree both sides do it. My point, and it is supported just by what Luv2Fly said is that when it comes to finger pointing liberals and democrats in general can dish it out but boy does the whining and crying begin when it comes back at them. Luv2Fly didn't say that anyone who uses the term geezer or gidget or who called President Bush were hateful, go figure.

There is a big difference in calling someone old and youthless. Sure it is not "nice" yet when was politics ever nice. It s a BIG difference when yelling out kill him! Granted McCain and Palin never actually said those words though there lack of speaking up speaks even more volume.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:48 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 194):
Intellectual fortitude from a man who believes in wealth redistribution

During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .

MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.


Also a handy quote from Palin:

“we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...08/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:22 am



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 195):
instead he's using the tired scare tactics that McCain has been using all along about socialism and redistribution of wealth.

As an economist, a businessman, and someone who, if Obama is elected and follows what he says, would probably benefit from his promised plan, his policies still scare the hell out of me. I think it's worth every scare tactic available - especially since I feel they are factually accurate.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 195):
Again, McCain needs to get his message across without sounding too negative; most news channels agree that the negative tone of his campaign is driving away undecided voters.



Quoting Charles79 (Reply 195):
FOX called these groups ridiculous

Rightfully so.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 195):
not the least because Obama is actually a very religious person

I have seen no evidence of this.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 195):
but this year the economy should be reason enough to get them out.

There are many people who dislike both candidate, and most of them are on the right (fiscal conservatives) and the center, because they can't bring themselves to like either candidate.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 197):
Are you calling people like David Gergen untrustworthy?

Yes. He's a Washington insider. Ergo, he's a crook.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 199):
During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC's "Hardball," a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be "penalized" by being "in a huge tax bracket." McCain replied that "wealthy people can afford more" and that "the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do." The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .

MCCAIN: Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

It's one thing to support a progressive taxation scheme to raise needed funds for the government in a way that does not give a huge burden to those who can least afford it.

It is quite another to collect taxes specifically for the purposes of income distribution, especially when it gets distributed to people who are not disabled, or temporarily out of work.

Here the facts: When an economy is going strong, the engine of the economy is the middle class. When the economy is in trouble and the middle class doesn't spend, the only engine that can revive the economy are the wealthy who continue to invest in their businesses and invest in venture capital. If Obama raises their taxes, the next recession that comes along will drag on longer, and maybe become a depression if raised high enough.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:41 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 200):
It's one thing to support a progressive taxation scheme to raise needed funds for the government in a way that does not give a huge burden to those who can least afford it.

It is quite another to collect taxes specifically for the purposes of income distribution, especially when it gets distributed to people who are not disabled, or temporarily out of work.

Spin it any way you like. I really don't see how you get the idea that Obama is simply going to take your money and hand it to poor people so they can go buy big screen TV's.

Obama's tax proposals aren't nearly as dramatic as the McCain camp (and FOX) would have you believe.

More from that New Yorker article...

The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent. The latter is what it would be under Obama’s proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bush’s tax cuts expire on schedule.

...

The total tax burden on the private economy would be somewhat lighter than it is now—a bit of elementary Keynesianism that renders doubly untrue the Republican claim that Obama “will raise your taxes.”
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:51 am



Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 201):
Spin it any way you like. I really don't see how you get the idea that Obama is simply going to take your money and hand it to poor people so they can go buy big screen TV's.

Maybe because that's what he's said. And, yes, it's not that much - only $1000 bucks or so, but you might recall that Social Security was originally around 1%. Income tax in the US, after the 16th amendment, was 1%, with a 5% rate above $500,000.

Once a government program is created, it develops an irresistable tendency to grow.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1661
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: U.S. Election - McCain/Palin Campaign - Part 7

Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:04 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 202):
Once a government program is created, it develops an irresistable tendency to grow.

What does this have to do with anything?

Are you suggesting that we're going to see a bull market on extraordinary renditions, detainment without criminal charges, wiretaps of US citizens without warrents, and dismissal (and supression) of scientific opinion if it diminishes a party platform?

Those are all fine things the Republicans have brought us recently.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avatar2go and 28 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos