Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by MSP, Mar 14, 2008.
Oh really, why so?
Why is John Mccain blanked on that list stating "Running for president" yet Obama and Hilary are still listed?
Did he just start his campaign super early or something?
I'm not sure whether he started campaigning early or not, but he definitely stopped doing his job earlier than the others.
Re MSP's claim of be being very partisan and biased.
First off, I'm not as diehard Democrat as I come across. On these boards its really to provide all you filthy Republicans with some perspective. (Plus, playing devil's advocate is quite enjoyable.)
Second, I have a huge disdain for Bush's policy both domestic and foreign. Has he done some good things in his Presidency? Of course, but they've been dwarfed by his huge and utter incompetence of many issues. This is where my fear of McCain becoming President lies, in the fact that he's marketed himself towards the Republicans and modeled his policies to be very in line with the current administration's dogma. HOWEVER, there is a part of me that hopes he is just playing the primary game where the candidate swings himself far to the extremes to get the party's nod. (Even Republicans see this with their campaigns that he's not a real conservative) John McCain from 2004 would have been an incredible president despite the fact that his feelings on the right to choose and other similar issues differ from mine. Traditionally he's been a very moderate Republican. Here's to hoping he's a waffler like Kerry.
Thirdly, on the claim of being partisan, I'm actually a registered Libertarian. I have voted that way in the past, however in how I view the direction that our country needs to take I cannot justify voting for a laissez-faire policy any longer. We're the most prosperous and now arguably the most powerful nation in the world. It's time for us to take care of those living within our borders and stop infringing on the rights of those living outside of them.
This means that we need to setup a system of healthcare so Wiskas and the like don't have to spend hundreds of their hard earned dollars ensuring that they receive medical care. This means we need to focus on the fact that less than half of high school students graduate in our large cities and under 2/3s outside of those cities. We need to move beyond a dependence on foreign oil cartels.
At this time, even with his connection to Wright (and I think I've voice my opinion on how that connection plays out in relation to other candidates quite well in this thread already) I think that Obama is the right candidate for this country at this time. I think we need an outsider with great charisma, great ideas and a hell of a following to shake things up inside the current political machine. However, if Clinton receives the party nod there will definitely a strong inclination towards voting for McCain as there is nothing about that woman's character that sits right (Wright? ) with me.
Your post might as well have been written by me!
That's exactly how I feel (although I don't consider myself a libertarian). Had the old McCain been running I'd be for him but with his agreement on some of the biggest issues siding with the current administration I cannot with a good conscience back him. And I too hope it's some kind of elaborate ruse and just an act he is putting on to get elected, but it's just not a chance I'm willing to take.
Regarding McCain's alignment with Bush's administration, I'll agree with him on the 'staying in Iraq as long as needed." It is stupid that we went to war in the first place, and also sucks balls that it has been going on this long (I have buddies over there.) But we can't just set a date and say "okay we'll be gone by then." With the set backs that get encountered in handing over control to the natives, we can't just drop out when we feel like it. That'd really suck balls for them. All these people saying we need to improve our world image need to stop and think about that for a second. How much better will we look if [candidate X] gets elected and we pull out and end up throwing the Iraqis under the bus?
I think the following is idealists who are attracted to buzzwords. If its the following thats important, I'd rather have Hilary's socialist army who actually knows what is going on.
What are Obama's ideas? Even the "detailed" economic thing he released a few months ago was pretty vague.
What was McCains?
Do you remember vietnam? Did we leave there all of the sudden? How did that turn out?
We were asked to leave 'Nam. I think we should vacate Iraq with as much haste as we can muster. They do not want to (and have proven it) to
help themselves as long as someone else will foot the bill. I'm to the point of "fuck'em in the ear running sideways". Cut off the money....all of it and see how nice they are towards us.
You keep making me out like I'm some sort of big McCain yahoo...but anyways, since you asked:
Get rid of AMT
higher voting percentage to raise taxes (no way this will pass if it stays a dem controlled congress tho)
something along the lines of (you can look it up, its pretty specific) a first year rebate on all capitol for new companys, and a 10% R&D tax break to stimulate US research/growth
no internet taxes (fuck you NY)
not isolating us from trade
I can outline Hilary's too if it would make you feel any better.
And I didn't make any comparisons to 'nam. But after we left, let's see - there were a crap ton of South Vietnamese that died, there were some wars, more communism, and a sour taste in everyone's mouth (except probably the N vietnamese).
The Iraqis aren't asking us to pull out. The word is that for the most part they are pretty happy. You can actually walk thru the streets of Fallujah now and not have to worry about getting shot. It sucks balls that we can't leave yet, but I don't see a need to tell them to fuck off if we're trying to save face with the international world.
Wait, McCain wants to get rid of AMT? Didn't he file using it this year?
Not sure what the higher voting percentage thing is, could you elaborate?
R&D is good, no net tax is good, not completely isolating us is good as long as he can pull back US manufacturing, run on sentences are also good.
I for one refuse to blame the Iraqi people for our mess. No one forced us to go into Iraq we did it of our own free will and we should accept full responsibility for our actions. We can whine and point fingers and blame everyone we want which is much easier than taking a good look at ourselves in the mirror.
We can stop blaming others for our complete and total incompetence/Epic Fail in the planning for this war. This is our baby and we need to fix it. We need to stop whining about it and take it like adults.
So more tax breaks for companies and more unfair trade agreements (a la NAFTA and china).
So basically what we have now. Yeah that seems to be working pretty well.
The problem with Iraq is that it is poorly mismanaged, all the way from the top to the bottom, from the US side of things to the Iraqi side of things. There is no clear cut goal and if you don't have a clearly defined goal then there is no possible way of winning or achieving anything. McCain supports the surge (which has worked) however it cannot be maintained, so once again where are we? McCain also says he would support a long term presence in Iraq and yet says he would like the troops to come home as soon as possible, which is it?
McCain is also for a foreign policy that calls for a preemptive defense and attacking rogue nations and is strongly pro Israel in that he is willing to send our troops to fight their battles.
And if you look at his past voting record (pre 2000) you can see all sorts of things that contradict what he is for now.
He voted for renewing no child left behind, wtf? And when asked if and what should be fixed with NCLB he said the law should be fixed -- especially in the areas of testing students with disabilities and non-English speaking students. Thats what he came up with?
He says he believes in global warming that is caused by humans, yet he opposed international treaties to gut green house gases (kyoto treaty for example), and he opposes investing in alternative energy sources.
Basically my point is this: You can't have a sound foreign policy if you have nothing to back it up with (troops for example) and you can't increase national security if all your eggs are in one basket (Iraq). Considering McCains flip flopping of issues and saying one thing and doing another for domestic issues I have no choice but to believe that he would not be able to clean up Iraq (which at this point is a domestic issue, for them) and therefore we should get out ASAP.
So we should stay in Iraq because there aren't a ton of Iraqis dieing right now? /sarcasm
And where is Vietnam now? Are they not a member of the WTO?
Are you telling me that we should have stayed in there and that we could have made it a better country a lot sooner? And how would we achieve this? With the same tactics that we use in Iraq to make sure all Iraqis have power to their homes and a fully functioning sewage system?
It's interesting that you guys clamor for less government when it comes to taxes and health care but you are the first ones to call for government interaction when it comes to nation building....our government wouldn't be able to run health care efficiently but they could run a country!/sarcasm
If a three year old draws on your wall would you make them clean it up? If you would how clean do you think it will be?
Iraq has been handled by a three year old, I don't want the three year old to try and clean up the mess.
This pretty much sums up my view of this Wright thing. Even though my opinion is somehow "laughable". Inwshane, you never did clear up what you meant by that.
Glenn Beck: Obama's odd timing on Wright - CNN.com
What was odd about the timing? Obama tried to smooth things over with that speech and hoped it would all go away, then eventually gave up and distanced himself from Wright after his latest escapade. As the article says:
For all his fancy speeches Obama is still just a politician and his motivations are those of a politician: "I am going to say whatever I calculate will win me the most votes and to fuck with everything else" :roll:
AMT is a bad thing if you have to pay it (unless you're filthy rich, in his case its technically fair.) It was created when people started getting filthy rich, so they couldn't escape paying taxes by using excessive deductions. The thing is, inflation has screwed it up, so you can be squarely middle class and get shafted by it. I'm not against it, but they need to readjust it for just the rich if they're going to keep it.
The tax voting thing is that congress must have a higher voting percentage than it does right. Pretty ballsy going into what will likely remain a democratic congress (the party as a whole is doing great right now, they just happened to field two shitty presidential candidates. Its sad that even though the republicans are putting up John McCain, he has a good chance of kicking the shit out of those two. They had the election handed to them on a silver platter and still are probably going to fuck it up.) That means they are going to raise taxes, but then its going to be harder to change them again. It should stop the waffling between the parties depending on who is in power. I'm not too happy on this one because if it ends up happening, it will probably mean locked in higher taxes.
If they pull back and isolate us, everything is going to go up in price. Not being able to buy cheap mexican steel in Detroit (for cars) means having to buy expensive american steel.
I like, no, love the R&D cuts and such, I think that is a great way to get us competitive again/further. We can't beat child labor and paying pennies an hour, but we can dominate the top end jobs and just stay ahead of everyone. Isolating ourselves is just going to result in a shitty internalized economy. We need to give up the dream of competing in unskilled and low skilled labor on a large scale.
I'm glad you are putting the sarcasm tags in there, because its honestly confusing as hell. Elaborate?
China and Cuba are in the WTO as well. They're both communist countries. I'm trying to see what point you are attempting here. Less questions please. Again, I didn't bring up anything about Vietnam.
Again, I've never called for shit when it comes to nation building. I think the whole Iraqi thing was a crock of shit. At this point however, I think it would almost literally be equivalent to throwing them under a bus to just pull out. The place will turn into a blood bath without foreign forces there. The fact that they are having such a hard problem getting a competent police force together should make this obvious.
I would hope government could run a country, since by definition, that's more or less what 'government' means.
Your posts like this are making me start to think you just blindly hate McCain.
A 35% tax rate for corporations? Seriously? That's a tax break?
Dunno how I fucked up posting this before - but here is a little list that shows the rates being the same (almost entirely) during Clinton's years, just so no dumbasses bring up how he was our nation's saving grace
And I'm not talking trade compared to now. Compared to the dems wanting to shell up, that sounds good to me.
Obviously both at once. This seems devastatingly simple. He would like for it to be over, but will 'stay the course' (to take a page from Bush's book) if necessary. I don't think anyone WANTS the troops to be over in Iraq.
Oh, and fuck making one big post. Too many points to make.
I was referring to the fact that you are complaining about one's character and ones ability to judge it and yet your voting for Bush twice shows you lack the skills to properly judge a politicians character.
I think you starting to seeing my point! The fact is, this administration has done a poor job of running this country and the "war on terrorism" and has made very poor decsions. Why would I or anyone want them (incompetent government) to have free reign on a country when what they need is to have someone one who knows what they are doing run it?
I'm sorry you have so much faith in our government, I don't.
A tax cut/break is a tax cut no matter how small.
The democrats are not calling for no trade, they are calling for more balanced trade agreements. I don't see the problem with using our status to influence trade agreements that benefit us, do you?
And I'll continue to make multiple posts because one big ass post is not fun to read nor does it make quoting other posts easier.
And yes I hate McCain. In 2000 I would have preferred him over Bush, however since then, not only has his views changed but so has his actions (pandering) and I find his character change despicable.
And you don't think that is going to help the economy at all? Notice its been going up as this country "goes to shit." Maybe thats what the problem is. Keep driving up the tax rate and its going to drive out all the big corporations, leaving us no jobs at all. As trendy as it is to hate corporations, you really need them. They produce goods, pay your paycheck, give you good health insurance, and many other benefits. Hiking taxes on them is going to result in three things: reduced benefits/pay, layoffs, and/or raised prices. Tax cuts will increase spending, thus resulting in more jobs from expansion, research and other expenditures. The evil greedy capitalists are not going to horde it, not many companies have overflowing coffers. Of course they want to make money, but the easiest way is to get bigger or more powerful, which happens by spending on expansion and research.
Never said there was anything wrong with using our status, I just don't think its going to help. Also, didn't say they're trying to stop trade. They're trying to protect american jobs where it cannot be done. Thats a downside to globalization. Jobs are going to be lost. Enacting laws and trade agreements to try and save that "handful" of people in the short term is just going to hurt everyone else in the long run by having to pay higher prices for what will probably end up being an inferior product.
It is really showing in this thread that you keep bringing up EVERYTHING about him, even when it isn't on topic. If you notice me ignoring parts of your posts, its because I either agree or it is completely irrelevant.
So Obama and the Change Brigade are going to come in and fix everything? You realize government inherently sucks because its so big. A few talking heads aren't going to change shit. The bureaucracy is too bloated for anything to happen in a semblance of short term.
I'm not even sure if I'd deign this the dignity of being a point. I'm hoping to hell it didn't help anyone "see your point". I'm missing what you were angling for here (and some of your other stuff - again, care to elaborate? This is starting to feel like Ali cutting and pasting Obama's campaign website then not responding)
In 2000 I was voting for change. Gore had been in the Whitehouse for 8 years and I wanted fresh blood. But 2004? No offense but I have no regrets voting against John Kerry. Which is basically what I did. And let's not forget that the candidate that I voted for won both elections. Four counting the two times I voted for Clinton. I guess when it comes to bad judgment of political character I'm in the majority.