OT: Dear Protesters
Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 31,919
- And1: 5,943
- Joined: Oct 09, 2005
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
to paraphrase, I think a lot of people are ashamed to admit they like George Bush because of how strong many people's opinions about him are, but deep down I think a lot of people truly believe he's helping make the world a better place one killed terrorist at a time. Despite the fact that the killed terrorist to killed innocent civilian ratio is about 1:50
McCain's strategy is not to veer too far off the course. No matter the bad publicity, bottom line is Bush is a 2 term president, so he's got a lot of support out there still. McCain is avoiding the controversial aspects of the Bush presidency by saying he'll be tough on oil companies and stuff, but he's sticking with the things the Bush constituency approves of: Killing muslims and/or terrorists. Jihad THIS!
As far as the racism, you'll just have to watch the amateur video coverage out on the 'net from inside the RNC. I'm sure they don't consider themselves racists, but if you walk/talk like a duck...
I'll tolerate a McCain presidency, but I won't like it. Barack pisses me off with his spinelessness in trying to appeal to everyone under the sun, but I think he'll at least have second thoughts about mindlessly marching across the globe and in this Revenge of the U.S. campaign thats been going on since September 12, 2001.
I'm ready for a novel military approach - defend our country by actually being in the country
I know, its crazy stuff. Barack probably will do his share of warlording too, but again, lesser of 2 evils. And I like the stuff about education and I think he's more serious about energy independence.
But then again, everybody preaches energy independence, but as far as I know, Hillary Clinton was the only one to visit Brazil and examine their sugarcane/ethanol infrastructure; Brazil being the world's only energy independent country.
To be honest, I'm so disillusioned that 75% of the time, I don't even care who wins. Let the populous pick who they want, thats why I joked I don't get involved in mortal affairs. If everybody wants McCain, then who am I to argue. If it goes well, then good job, if it goes horrible, then people can learn the hard way.
McCain's strategy is not to veer too far off the course. No matter the bad publicity, bottom line is Bush is a 2 term president, so he's got a lot of support out there still. McCain is avoiding the controversial aspects of the Bush presidency by saying he'll be tough on oil companies and stuff, but he's sticking with the things the Bush constituency approves of: Killing muslims and/or terrorists. Jihad THIS!
As far as the racism, you'll just have to watch the amateur video coverage out on the 'net from inside the RNC. I'm sure they don't consider themselves racists, but if you walk/talk like a duck...
I'll tolerate a McCain presidency, but I won't like it. Barack pisses me off with his spinelessness in trying to appeal to everyone under the sun, but I think he'll at least have second thoughts about mindlessly marching across the globe and in this Revenge of the U.S. campaign thats been going on since September 12, 2001.
I'm ready for a novel military approach - defend our country by actually being in the country
I know, its crazy stuff. Barack probably will do his share of warlording too, but again, lesser of 2 evils. And I like the stuff about education and I think he's more serious about energy independence.
But then again, everybody preaches energy independence, but as far as I know, Hillary Clinton was the only one to visit Brazil and examine their sugarcane/ethanol infrastructure; Brazil being the world's only energy independent country.
To be honest, I'm so disillusioned that 75% of the time, I don't even care who wins. Let the populous pick who they want, thats why I joked I don't get involved in mortal affairs. If everybody wants McCain, then who am I to argue. If it goes well, then good job, if it goes horrible, then people can learn the hard way.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 30,811
- And1: 8,832
- Joined: Nov 02, 2007
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
Devilzsidewalk wrote: If it goes well, then good job, if it goes horrible, then people can learn the hard way.
If only they would.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 55,074
- And1: 14,390
- Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
Thanks for those posts devilz.
BTW, here's a record of how many times each Senator voted along party lines:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... ty-voters/
I was surprised to see that out of 100 Senators, Norm Coleman is 94th in voting along party lines. Maybe its his democrat background, or have their just been a ton of votes on ethanol and natural resources? Anyway, listening to the Franken commericals, I thought he was a Bush lapdog, but by his actions, he appears to be highly independent.
BTW, here's a record of how many times each Senator voted along party lines:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... ty-voters/
I was surprised to see that out of 100 Senators, Norm Coleman is 94th in voting along party lines. Maybe its his democrat background, or have their just been a ton of votes on ethanol and natural resources? Anyway, listening to the Franken commericals, I thought he was a Bush lapdog, but by his actions, he appears to be highly independent.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 30,811
- And1: 8,832
- Joined: Nov 02, 2007
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
That's just for this current congress, correct? I remember Coleman acting like Bush's lapdog right after Sep. 11, now he's all "independent". He just strikes me as smarmy. It would be interesting to see Coleman's (and others') voting record going back 7 or 8 years. I think it is fashionable for Republicans to distance themselves from Bush right now.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 31,919
- And1: 5,943
- Joined: Oct 09, 2005
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
and as an addendum, I don't agree with the whole "Barack is too inexperienced" barrage that McCain is pinning up as his ace in the hole
as far as I know, none of the candidates have been president before, so I'd say they're all equally inexperienced. Being a decision-maker as a governor or senator or even city councilman has no relation to being a decision-maker as president just like being equipment manager of a little league team doesn't mean you're ready to be GM of the Yankees. Being a 55 term Senator doesn't mean you know how to be president, and a few vacations in the Falkland Islands doesn't mean you're now well-versed in International Relations and ready for wheeling and dealing with other countries.
Experience be damned, as far as I'm concerned, the #1 issue is morality - who truly believes in equality, unity, and making an honest attempt to help out as many people as possible? I don't care for a president that wants to help me because I'm white, or rich, or male, or young, or even because I'm American, I want a prez that wants to help humans. If you want me to sacrifice for someone who's doing worse than me, then I'm down, I can learn to accept that if you show me you have a plan and know what you're doing, but don't bend over for some multi-billion dollar organization at my expense and others like me, thats not equality.
That should be obvious to everyone, but we keep electing people that allow this to go on. They benefit, their friends benefit, the absurdly rich benefit, we wake up at 6 am to go to our jobs for the privilege of buying somewhere to sleep a few hours until our job starts again the next day and a car and gas to get there.
as far as I know, none of the candidates have been president before, so I'd say they're all equally inexperienced. Being a decision-maker as a governor or senator or even city councilman has no relation to being a decision-maker as president just like being equipment manager of a little league team doesn't mean you're ready to be GM of the Yankees. Being a 55 term Senator doesn't mean you know how to be president, and a few vacations in the Falkland Islands doesn't mean you're now well-versed in International Relations and ready for wheeling and dealing with other countries.
Experience be damned, as far as I'm concerned, the #1 issue is morality - who truly believes in equality, unity, and making an honest attempt to help out as many people as possible? I don't care for a president that wants to help me because I'm white, or rich, or male, or young, or even because I'm American, I want a prez that wants to help humans. If you want me to sacrifice for someone who's doing worse than me, then I'm down, I can learn to accept that if you show me you have a plan and know what you're doing, but don't bend over for some multi-billion dollar organization at my expense and others like me, thats not equality.
That should be obvious to everyone, but we keep electing people that allow this to go on. They benefit, their friends benefit, the absurdly rich benefit, we wake up at 6 am to go to our jobs for the privilege of buying somewhere to sleep a few hours until our job starts again the next day and a car and gas to get there.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 55,074
- And1: 14,390
- Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
C.lupus wrote:That's just for this current congress, correct? I remember Coleman acting like Bush's lapdog right after Sep. 11, now he's all "independent". He just strikes me as smarmy. It would be interesting to see Coleman's (and others') voting record going back 7 or 8 years. I think it is fashionable for Republicans to distance themselves from Bush right now.
He's only been a Senator for six years, or three Senates. He was
In 2006-08 he was the 7th most independent voter of 100
In 2004-06 he was the 13th most independent voter of 100 (McCain was #6, Obama was #96)
In 2002-04 he was the 53rd most independent voter of 100 (McCain was #8, Obama wasn't a Senator yet)
Here's the page with his info, and how he voted on specific issues. I didn't know he was 59, or that he still owes Sallie May to pay off his son's college loans.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... s/c001057/
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
- Basti
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 37,470
- And1: 3,678
- Joined: Sep 07, 2005
- Location: Æ ha en ståkukk!
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
well if I could vote I'd have a hard choice to do. if I'd go by my heart I'd instantly go with Nader because from what I've read and heard of him he seems to be the one who's the most interested in helping the people. his biggest problem is that he's an independent politician or a member of a "meaningless" party (I don't know his membership) so he won't play a major role for the upcoming election (unless the democrats blame him for taking their votes again lol)
anyway, my brain says, I'd pick Barack. why? because as many have said: he's the lesser evil of both. don't get me wrong, I kinda like McCain. I just happen to despise the Republican Party. anyway, my biggest problem with the Democrats is that they seem to be hypocrits. I hope I'm not totally off but from what I've gathered from our media it always looked like whenever they had to make a decision they couldn't get anything to go or they happen to change their political views within a few months/years.
I have no problem with the person of Barack Obama because he seems to be a gentle, smart and open-minded guy but I kinda dislike both parties behing their candidates.
if there were more than 2 major parties in america I'd certainly vote for Nader because he could make a change or at least he'd have the opportunity to but since the minor parties have close-to-none power in america I'd go with the Democrats.
anyway, my brain says, I'd pick Barack. why? because as many have said: he's the lesser evil of both. don't get me wrong, I kinda like McCain. I just happen to despise the Republican Party. anyway, my biggest problem with the Democrats is that they seem to be hypocrits. I hope I'm not totally off but from what I've gathered from our media it always looked like whenever they had to make a decision they couldn't get anything to go or they happen to change their political views within a few months/years.
I have no problem with the person of Barack Obama because he seems to be a gentle, smart and open-minded guy but I kinda dislike both parties behing their candidates.
if there were more than 2 major parties in america I'd certainly vote for Nader because he could make a change or at least he'd have the opportunity to but since the minor parties have close-to-none power in america I'd go with the Democrats.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
- revprodeji
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 22,388
- And1: 8
- Joined: Dec 25, 2002
- Location: Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought
- Contact:
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
Shox214 wrote:Who are you guys voting for?
McCain, only because Obama is incredibly pro-abortion. The pro-life issue is essential to any christian/catholic and in clear conscious I cannot vote for Obama.
http://www.timetoshop.org
Weight management, Sports nutrition and more...
Weight management, Sports nutrition and more...
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
- deeney0
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,594
- And1: 9
- Joined: Jan 26, 2005
- Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
I'm going to address some of these, since I think we have similar views. I'm also a socially liberal, economically conservative independent. I supported Norm Colman six years ago and if I was voting in Minnesota I'd probably vote for him again. But I've been an active Barack Obama supporter for over a year. This is going to be long and rambling, I'm afraid.
You don't think both parties have been taking things completely out of context? McCain might not have last night (he has before), but that's just because his speech was full of hand waving generalities, contradictions, and blatant lies, such as:
-He said Obama would "close" markets to trade. Obama has never said or done anything to remotely suggest this.
-He said Obama wanted to "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs," ignoring the fact that he's really a hypocrite for attacking Obama on this, he doesn't cite enough information to tell wtf he's talking about.
-He said Obama supported tax cuts for oil companies. This is absurd. Obama voted for the bill that raised taxes on oil companies and subsedized alternative fuels.
-He said he wants to stop spending billions of unnecessary dollars in Iraq. He also said he wants the troops to remain there indefinitely. Which is it?
I would love to see a campaign where both candidates did that. But it isn't going to happen. See: Kerry, John.
Does it matter how McCain voted in the past, when he's changed his mind now? He voted against Bush's tax cuts. But it undercuts his "maverick" image severely that he now supports making them permanent. I'm not sure where his bipartisan voting record comes from, but his views right now are right in line with the Republican base. Anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-renewable energy (his energy plan includes no new funds for alternative fuels. He wants the US to drill its way to energy independence.), pro-war, pro-tax cuts for the rich, pro-gun.
You said the candidates haven't focused on the issues as much (perhaps I'm incorrectly paraphrasing?) but then you say that honestly and nonpartisanship are whats most important to you. I think that's a disconnect. It's precisely because people care about character so much that the issues get glazed over.
Where was McCains' independence in his VP choice? No Ridge, no Lieberman. He chose someone so far to the right that she doesn't support the right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy even in the case of rape. That wasn't a demonstration of independence or bipartisanship, that was yielding to the all mighty Rove.
I like John McCain, I think he's a good person. But I think he's going to hate himself after this campaign when he realizes just how much of his soul he sold to the right.
Where would you have had him vote with the Republicans in the last three years? His voting record is not evidence of anything. Obama has a record of working with both sides. He led a bipartisan effort with Norm Coleman, among others, to raise fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles. He was also part of bipartisan initiatives for nuclear nonproliferation and senate ethics reform. Obama is a compromiser. I'm not sure that McCain isn't, but to paint Obama as a democratic mainliner is missing the picture entirely.
You don't have to earn the right to run for President. Some of the best presidents in history came in with little or no experience:
FDR: 4 years as governor of NY.
Lincoln: 3 years in the House of Representatives
Teddy Roosevelt: 2 years as governor of NY, one year as vice president
Wilson: 2 years as governor of NJ
In contrast, some of the worst presidents have had a butt load of experience:
James Buchanan: 10 years in the senate, 10 years in the house
Richard Nixon: 4 years in the house, 2 years in the senate, 8 years as VP
Franklin Pierce: 2 years as a general, 5 years in the senate, 4 years in the house
Ford: 25 years in the house
Garfield: 18 years in the house
What issues are important to you? I think you're a little too focused on who McCain has been rather than who he has now. He's moved quite a bit to the right in the last 9 months.
shrink wrote:First, Obama said something in his acceptance speech that really turned me off. In a previous interview, John McCain joked (and everyone laughed) that if you didn't make $5 mil a year, you weren't "rich." He went on to say "seriously though .." 2-3 times amidst the laughter, and even said something like, "I'm sure someone will try to make me look bad about the joke." He was trying to get across that he wanted everyone to become rich, but he was right about someone using it. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, in the largest platform he's had so far, Obama flat out said that $5 mil was McCain's position, and not a single word about it being a joke.
You don't think both parties have been taking things completely out of context? McCain might not have last night (he has before), but that's just because his speech was full of hand waving generalities, contradictions, and blatant lies, such as:
-He said Obama would "close" markets to trade. Obama has never said or done anything to remotely suggest this.
-He said Obama wanted to "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs," ignoring the fact that he's really a hypocrite for attacking Obama on this, he doesn't cite enough information to tell wtf he's talking about.
-He said Obama supported tax cuts for oil companies. This is absurd. Obama voted for the bill that raised taxes on oil companies and subsedized alternative fuels.
-He said he wants to stop spending billions of unnecessary dollars in Iraq. He also said he wants the troops to remain there indefinitely. Which is it?
shrink wrote:To me, if you're running with virtually no experience, and as a "man of ideas," its only fair that you present your opponent's ideas honestly.If your ideas are better, they will previal. If you don't have actions to stand on, I need to believe in the integrity of your ideas, otherwise there is nothing for me to pin my vote on.
I would love to see a campaign where both candidates did that. But it isn't going to happen. See: Kerry, John.
shrink wrote:Second, I'm an independent (socially liberal, economically conservative) or maybe more precisely, disillusioned with both political parties. They both have a few good ideas I agree with, but they are always fighting each other so they don't happen. Obama claims to be running as a guy that will end partisanship. Yesterday, I went and looked up their voting record.
The "maverick "McCain has a history of voting along party lines 67%-90%. I think that's a remarkably independent number. Harry Reid has voted with the president 40% of the time, because many bills are just the operation of the country, or cooperative bills. Imagine the balls it take to vote 67%. If we say the 40% are unanimous votes by both parties, when McCain voted 67%, he voted 23% of the time on controversial bills with democrats, and 37% with republicans. Getting Lieberman to endorse him further shows me that in addition to what he's done (gang of 14, for example), he's independent.
Does it matter how McCain voted in the past, when he's changed his mind now? He voted against Bush's tax cuts. But it undercuts his "maverick" image severely that he now supports making them permanent. I'm not sure where his bipartisan voting record comes from, but his views right now are right in line with the Republican base. Anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-renewable energy (his energy plan includes no new funds for alternative fuels. He wants the US to drill its way to energy independence.), pro-war, pro-tax cuts for the rich, pro-gun.
You said the candidates haven't focused on the issues as much (perhaps I'm incorrectly paraphrasing?) but then you say that honestly and nonpartisanship are whats most important to you. I think that's a disconnect. It's precisely because people care about character so much that the issues get glazed over.
Where was McCains' independence in his VP choice? No Ridge, no Lieberman. He chose someone so far to the right that she doesn't support the right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy even in the case of rape. That wasn't a demonstration of independence or bipartisanship, that was yielding to the all mighty Rove.
I like John McCain, I think he's a good person. But I think he's going to hate himself after this campaign when he realizes just how much of his soul he sold to the right.
shrink wrote:Now Obama keeps saying he's the guy to end partisanship. What did his voting record turn out to be? In his three years in the Senate, he's voted along party lines 96%, 94% and 96%. He has no history whatsoever of being non-partisan. If you say it -- act it.
Where would you have had him vote with the Republicans in the last three years? His voting record is not evidence of anything. Obama has a record of working with both sides. He led a bipartisan effort with Norm Coleman, among others, to raise fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles. He was also part of bipartisan initiatives for nuclear nonproliferation and senate ethics reform. Obama is a compromiser. I'm not sure that McCain isn't, but to paint Obama as a democratic mainliner is missing the picture entirely.
shrink wrote:I have serious, serious concerns about John McCain. But honesty and partisanship are big deals with me, and McCain being the biggest thorn in the side of the Republicans for the past eight years kind of gives him some cred to me. I think that McCain is going to do what he thinks is right (though I assume several times I'll disagree), and he'll thumb his nose at detractors and polls. Scary, but in a first-term Wellstone kind of way, I find that admirable.
Lastly, I think McCain's done enough for America to be in that group of politicians who's earned the right to run for President. Obama just hasn't. Maybe he will in ten years, and if he can show he can act on his pretty words, he may earn it, and I may vote for him. I hope he does. I hope he runs an honorable campaign, becomes a bigger political player to get his ideas passed through congress, even when they disagree with his party. Right now though, its premature.
You don't have to earn the right to run for President. Some of the best presidents in history came in with little or no experience:
FDR: 4 years as governor of NY.
Lincoln: 3 years in the House of Representatives
Teddy Roosevelt: 2 years as governor of NY, one year as vice president
Wilson: 2 years as governor of NJ
In contrast, some of the worst presidents have had a butt load of experience:
James Buchanan: 10 years in the senate, 10 years in the house
Richard Nixon: 4 years in the house, 2 years in the senate, 8 years as VP
Franklin Pierce: 2 years as a general, 5 years in the senate, 4 years in the house
Ford: 25 years in the house
Garfield: 18 years in the house
What issues are important to you? I think you're a little too focused on who McCain has been rather than who he has now. He's moved quite a bit to the right in the last 9 months.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
- deeney0
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,594
- And1: 9
- Joined: Jan 26, 2005
- Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
revprodeji wrote:The pro-life issue is essential to any christian/catholic and in clear conscious I cannot vote for Obama.
Nah, you're generalizing there. I get by being a pro-choice Christian (raised catholic) just fine.
Edit: That came off as a bit harsh. You're well within your right to be a single issue voter and to justify that by your religion. But I think you would agree that you take your Catholicism quite a bit more seriously than most people. I strongly disagree though that it is ESSENTIAL to ANY Christian to support pro-life candidates. That's simply untrue.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 806
- And1: 0
- Joined: Feb 07, 2006
- Location: Here
- Contact:
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
Political humor
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/elec ... quotes.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/elec ... s-2008.htm
http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/09/the_ ... 1_7047.php
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/elec ... hanges.htm
Candidate matchers Barack and McCain
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... h-game.htm
http://votechooser.com/index.html
Candidate matcher with most/all the nomination candidates.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... iginal.htm
Another pretty good one
http://www.chron.com/mm/2008finder/
I'm pretty much even with Barack and McCain.
The environment, renewable energy, and NASA/space are the biggest concerns for me.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/elec ... quotes.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/elec ... s-2008.htm
http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/09/the_ ... 1_7047.php
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/elec ... hanges.htm
Candidate matchers Barack and McCain
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... h-game.htm
http://votechooser.com/index.html
Candidate matcher with most/all the nomination candidates.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... iginal.htm
Another pretty good one
http://www.chron.com/mm/2008finder/
I'm pretty much even with Barack and McCain.
The environment, renewable energy, and NASA/space are the biggest concerns for me.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
- casey
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,660
- And1: 7
- Joined: Jun 18, 2005
- Contact:
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
Shox214 wrote:Who are you guys voting for?
I really doubt I'm gonna vote, one vote doesn't make a difference, but I'd probably go with Obama.
Devilzsidewalk wrote:as far as I know, none of the candidates have been president before, so I'd say they're all equally inexperienced. Being a decision-maker as a governor or senator or even city councilman has no relation to being a decision-maker as president just like being equipment manager of a little league team doesn't mean you're ready to be GM of the Yankees. Being a 55 term Senator doesn't mean you know how to be president, and a few vacations in the Falkland Islands doesn't mean you're now well-versed in International Relations and ready for wheeling and dealing with other countries.
So you're saying that the amount of political experience someone has makes no difference on how well they'll be able to run the country? Come on now. I can see the argument that the experience card has been played too much, but you seem to be saying that it's completely irrelevant.
"I'm Ricky Rubio."
--Ricky Rubio
--Ricky Rubio
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 55,074
- And1: 14,390
- Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
deeney - thanks for your post.
I don't expect honesty out of either party, but like I said, if you're Obama and you have no record of consequence, as a voter I have to believe you're telling the truth about what you are going to do. Here's the clip of McCain's joke on CNN about $5 mil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zovk-H5q ... re=related (between the 1:30-2:00 min in .. the rest is all boring canned answer). There is no way Obama could have mistaken that McCain believes $5 mil makes you rich. He chose to specifically misrepresent it in his biggest speech! As a voter, I am being asked to take on faith that Obama's pretty words are what he will do, and his decision to deliberate misrepresent McCain's position just to personally benefit makes him just another politician -- all talk, no honesty.
I have heard the line of reasoning before that McCain's recent votes completely invalidate his record as a maverick to the public. However, I have never heard that from anyone but Obama supporters. 90% party allegiance is not very high anyway, but McCain has proven himself to be one of the most independent Senators in the last fifty years. We don't have those extra conservative judges because McCain stuck his finger in Bush's eye and led the Gang of 14 .. something I am very happy for personally. Who's the last guy in history that you can name who has had that kind of balls, to defy his party's president and his party's political machine?
Incidentally, when I researched the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2002, I have always felt they have been badly mischaracterized as "tax cuts for the rich." EVERY income level got a tax cut. In fact, it could very easily be argued that the middle class and poor got a much better deal. The tax cuts lowered the marginal tax rate on the highest income groups from 38% to 35%. What about the other end? Their tax rate dropped from 15% to 10%, which is not only a bigger percentage, but tmany more individuals end up getting their tax bill cut by a third. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts raised the amount of money that the poorest tax payers could earn before they had to pay any tax, so some of these people who were paying 20% ended up paying 0%.
As for the VP pick, like always, each candidate picks someone to address their political weakness. Obama picked someone with experience, and McCain picked someone to appeal to conservatives, because most conservative republicans hate the guy because he goes so far off the reservation.
Finally, let me say that I don't even like McCain. He has had me scared for years, and you probably like him more than me, even as you campaign for Obama. However, like Paul Wellstone, I have no doubt that McCain's going to do what he thinks is right for America, no matter what his party says, or what polls say. I admire that, but it scares me to death, and does not mean he's going to do what I like personally. I think you're right though that he might feel dirty after going through this election.
I don't expect honesty out of either party, but like I said, if you're Obama and you have no record of consequence, as a voter I have to believe you're telling the truth about what you are going to do. Here's the clip of McCain's joke on CNN about $5 mil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zovk-H5q ... re=related (between the 1:30-2:00 min in .. the rest is all boring canned answer). There is no way Obama could have mistaken that McCain believes $5 mil makes you rich. He chose to specifically misrepresent it in his biggest speech! As a voter, I am being asked to take on faith that Obama's pretty words are what he will do, and his decision to deliberate misrepresent McCain's position just to personally benefit makes him just another politician -- all talk, no honesty.
I have heard the line of reasoning before that McCain's recent votes completely invalidate his record as a maverick to the public. However, I have never heard that from anyone but Obama supporters. 90% party allegiance is not very high anyway, but McCain has proven himself to be one of the most independent Senators in the last fifty years. We don't have those extra conservative judges because McCain stuck his finger in Bush's eye and led the Gang of 14 .. something I am very happy for personally. Who's the last guy in history that you can name who has had that kind of balls, to defy his party's president and his party's political machine?
Incidentally, when I researched the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2002, I have always felt they have been badly mischaracterized as "tax cuts for the rich." EVERY income level got a tax cut. In fact, it could very easily be argued that the middle class and poor got a much better deal. The tax cuts lowered the marginal tax rate on the highest income groups from 38% to 35%. What about the other end? Their tax rate dropped from 15% to 10%, which is not only a bigger percentage, but tmany more individuals end up getting their tax bill cut by a third. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts raised the amount of money that the poorest tax payers could earn before they had to pay any tax, so some of these people who were paying 20% ended up paying 0%.
As for the VP pick, like always, each candidate picks someone to address their political weakness. Obama picked someone with experience, and McCain picked someone to appeal to conservatives, because most conservative republicans hate the guy because he goes so far off the reservation.
Finally, let me say that I don't even like McCain. He has had me scared for years, and you probably like him more than me, even as you campaign for Obama. However, like Paul Wellstone, I have no doubt that McCain's going to do what he thinks is right for America, no matter what his party says, or what polls say. I admire that, but it scares me to death, and does not mean he's going to do what I like personally. I think you're right though that he might feel dirty after going through this election.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 55,074
- And1: 14,390
- Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
casey wrote: So you're saying that the amount of political experience someone has makes no difference on how well they'll be able to run the country? Come on now. I can see the argument that the experience card has been played too much, but you seem to be saying that it's completely irrelevant.
I have to agree. For example, I can think of no better experience to being Commander in Chief than if one of the candidates would have chaired the Senate Armed Forces Committee.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 55,074
- And1: 14,390
- Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
I looked further at that website, and here are some key votes McCain voted against his party on, and with the democrats
Vote 157: S 2611: Would tighten border security and establish guest worker and "path to citizenship" programs (yes)
Vote 163: On the Cloture Motion: A Senate cloture vote on the gay marriage amendment failed, effectively killing the amendment. (no)
Vote 206: H R 810: This legislation would allow federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. (yes)
Vote 157: S 2611: Would tighten border security and establish guest worker and "path to citizenship" programs (yes)
Vote 163: On the Cloture Motion: A Senate cloture vote on the gay marriage amendment failed, effectively killing the amendment. (no)
Vote 206: H R 810: This legislation would allow federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. (yes)
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 30,811
- And1: 8,832
- Joined: Nov 02, 2007
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
For some reason I feel kind of wierd talking politics here but what the heck. I find that I agree with McCain on some issues and Obama on others. The issues that I care the most about, though, I seem to be strongly in the Obama camp so he gets my vote.
Here's a good site that keeps track of the truth in the candidates' statements:
http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/
Here's a good site that keeps track of the truth in the candidates' statements:
http://politifact.org/truth-o-meter/
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
- deeney0
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,594
- And1: 9
- Joined: Jan 26, 2005
- Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
shrink wrote: I have no doubt that McCain's going to do what he thinks is right for America, no matter what his party says, or what polls say. I admire that, but it scares me to death
On this, we agree. But this sounds like an argument not to vote for the man to me.
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
- deeney0
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,594
- And1: 9
- Joined: Jan 26, 2005
- Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
shrink wrote:Incidentally, when I researched the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2002, I have always felt they have been badly mischaracterized as "tax cuts for the rich." EVERY income level got a tax cut. In fact, it could very easily be argued that the middle class and poor got a much better deal. The tax cuts lowered the marginal tax rate on the highest income groups from 38% to 35%. What about the other end? Their tax rate dropped from 15% to 10%, which is not only a bigger percentage, but tmany more individuals end up getting their tax bill cut by a third. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts raised the amount of money that the poorest tax payers could earn before they had to pay any tax, so some of these people who were paying 20% ended up paying 0%.
You don't think making all those tax cuts permanent is irresponsible? I can understand them in 2001 and 2002 in a Keynesian sort of way, not that Bush would ever describe himself as a Keynesian. But there were no tax raises in the better times of 2004, 2005, 2006. I can also understand them in a Small Governemtn sort of way, but that didn't happen. The government has bloated over the last 8 years. Hundreds of Billions have been spent in Iraq. ANY tax cuts for the wealthy don't make sense in such a climate.
BTW, here's a comparrison of the tax cuts Obama and McCain propose: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
- deeney0
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,594
- And1: 9
- Joined: Jan 26, 2005
- Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
shrink wrote:I looked further at that website, and here are some key votes McCain voted against his party on, and with the democrats
Vote 157: S 2611: Would tighten border security and establish guest worker and "path to citizenship" programs (yes)
Vote 163: On the Cloture Motion: A Senate cloture vote on the gay marriage amendment failed, effectively killing the amendment. (no)
Vote 206: H R 810: This legislation would allow federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. (yes)
And he no longer supports his own votes on ANY of these.
Re: Guest Worker programs, he wrote a bill for that, and now when he's asked if he would support his own bill he says no.
Re: Stem cell, from his own website "[McCain supports] making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes."
Re: Gay Marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWAWSoQeBbQ June 2008
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
- kandiking
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,551
- And1: 1
- Joined: Jul 21, 2007
Re: OT: Dear Protesters
obama here's why
democrats= tax and spend
neoconservatives= spend and spend
republicans= where?
democrats= tax and spend
neoconservatives= spend and spend
republicans= where?
Vindicater wrote:KWSN-Men is by far my favourite poster on realgm. He just takes so much punishment and just keeps coming back for more.
Return to Minnesota Timberwolves