How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue

[Homyrrh]

(from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin))
June 17, 2008
How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
WASHINGTON — The Democrats like to say that electing Senator John McCain would usher in the third term of George W. Bush, and they do not mean it as a compliment. The Republicans counter that calling the senator “McBush” is political spin and that Mr. McCain is his own man.

A look at Mr. McCain’s 25-year record in the House and Senate, his 2008 campaign positions and his major speeches over the last three months indicates that on big-ticket issues — the economy, support for continuing the Iraq war, health care — his stances are indeed similar to Mr. Bush’s brand of conservatism. Mr. McCain’s positions are nearly identical to the president’s on abortion and the types of judges he says he would appoint to the courts.

On the environment, American diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, Mr. McCain has strikingly different views from Mr. Bush, and while he shares the president’s goals in Iraq, he was at times an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.

The disparities between the two are murkier on other issues. On immigration, Mr. McCain started out with Mr. Bush — at odds with the Republican mainstream — by favoring a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, then backed off and emphasized the border-security-first approach favored by a majority of his party.

When it comes to dealing with terrorism suspects, Mr. McCain has supported imposing tighter rules than favored by the administration on the use of harsh interrogation techniques, but has consistently been with the president on limiting the legal rights of Guantánamo detainees. In one indicator that his view of executive power is moving closer to that of Mr. Bush, his campaign has recently signaled that he believes it was constitutional for the president to authorize wiretaps without warrants to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail.

Mr. McCain has reversed himself on some issues — most notably, embracing the Bush tax cuts now after deriding them initially as fiscally risky and excessively skewed to the wealthy — and continues to adjust his positions on others. On Monday, he said he continued to oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, leaving him at odds with the White House and most of his party, but said he favored giving states more flexibility to decide whether to explore for oil off their coasts.

On balance, the McCain campaign has sought to emphasize the differences between Mr. McCain and the unpopular Mr. Bush rather than the similarities.

“In the last 10 years, he’s been an independent voice for what he thinks is in his country’s best interest,” said Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers. “Sometimes it’s brought him into conflict with members of his party and with the president. The Democrats know that.”

Yet while it would be hard to categorize him as a doctrinaire Republican or conservative, Mr. McCain appears to have ceded some of his carefully cultivated reputation as a maverick.

In a CBS News poll two weeks ago, 43 percent of registered voters said they believed he would continue Mr. Bush’s policies, and 21 percent said he would be more conservative in his policies than Mr. Bush. Twenty-eight percent said he would be less conservative than Mr. Bush. [emphasis added]

Presidencies are about more than policies, of course, and Mr. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House should he be elected in November.

Although he once held very different views, Mr. McCain’s biggest similarity to Mr. Bush now is on the economy. Not only does the senator now support making permanent the large Bush tax cuts he once opposed — the $1.35 trillion tax reduction of 2001 and the $320 billion tax cut of 2003 — but he has proposed four major new tax cuts of his own.

Democrats say that those four proposed cuts — a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent, immediate tax breaks for corporate investment, a repeal of the alternative minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000 from $3,500 — are more regressive than Mr. Bush’s tax cuts because they favor the rich more disproportionately than the president’s reductions did. Mr. McCain’s advisers said his plan would help stimulate job creation by reducing taxes on small businesses, especially those that pay taxes at the personal income tax rate, and would be part of a fiscal plan that would also emphasize reining in the growth of government spending far more than Mr. Bush did.

On health care, Mr. McCain has a market-oriented model similar to the one that Mr. Bush proposed to little effect in 2007. Like Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain would shift the emphasis from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals, and would offer a tax benefit for families to do so.

“In general, they’re much more similar than different,” said Drew Altman, the president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group. “In terms of their goals, they’re more focused on making the market more efficient than in expanding coverage.”

Mr. McCain’s proposal, however, is more progressive in that it offers a refundable credit of $5,000 to families to buy their own insurance, whether or not they pay taxes — in effect, cash. Although experts have questioned whether the $5,000 tax credit would cover the cost of private insurance, they generally say that Mr. Bush’s plan, which offered a $15,000 tax deduction for families buying their own insurance, was more valuable to higher-income people.

On the Iraq war, Mr. McCain has been one of the president’s biggest defenders of its stated rationale: saving the world from Saddam Hussein. Yet he was also an early advocate of increasing troop levels at a time when Mr. Bush was resistant, and was withering, from 2004 on, about Donald H. Rumsfeld, then defense secretary, and what Mr. McCain called Mr. Rumsfeld’s “whack a mole” strategy of moving American troops from one violence-plagued part of Iraq to another.

Like Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain has steadfastly refused to set dates for withdrawals of troops and envisions a long-term American presence in the country. But last month, in the general election battleground state of Ohio, Mr. McCain did a semantic dance and said he expected that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.

On abortion, Mr. McCain has long been opposed, and is in fact more explicit than the president in his opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Although Mr. Bush has spoken about changing American “hearts and minds” to build a “culture of life,” Mr. McCain has said directly, in South Carolina in 2007, that Roe v. Wade “should be overturned.”

On judges, Mr. McCain has strongly embraced the judicial philosophy of Mr. Bush and vowed to appoint conservative judges in the mold of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

On gay rights, Mr. McCain voted against a proposed constitutional amendment backed by Mr. Bush banning same-sex marriage, saying that it should be up to the states. Then in 2006, he made it clear how he thought his home state, Arizona, should decide: Mr. McCain appeared in a television commercial in support of a state amendment, which ultimately failed, to ban same-sex marriages.


Perhaps Mr. McCain’s biggest departure from the president is on climate change. Mr. McCain has called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, unlike Mr. Bush, who says such limits would be bad for the economy. Mr. McCain also supports a “cap and trade” system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide by either reducing emissions on their own or by buying credits from more efficient producers.

Mr. McCain, who has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate — he has missed votes on toughening fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy — has nonetheless tried to highlight what he considers his stark environmental divide with Mr. Bush.

“There is a longstanding, significant, deep, strong difference on this issue between myself and the administration,” Mr. McCain said last month.

On diplomacy, Mr. McCain has regularly distanced himself from the go-it-alone unilateralism of the Bush administration.

“We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to,” Mr. McCain said in a major foreign policy address in Los Angeles in late March. “We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new compact.”

In the same vein, Mr. McCain has significantly broken with Mr. Bush on nuclear security policy. Unlike the president, he supports a legally binding accord between the United States and Russia on limiting nuclear weapons, the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, a strengthening of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, increased financing for the International Atomic Energy Agency and nuclear talks with China.

On Iran and North Korea, the two nations whose nuclear programs will present the next president with a tough set of options, Mr. McCain has allied himself with the Bush administration. He would refuse to engage in unconditional diplomacy with Iran and would continue to maintain contact with North Korea, primarily through multilateral talks. He has insisted, however, that the United States be able to verify effectively any agreement in which North Korea promises to abandon its nuclear weapons.

[Homyrrh]

Also, though I'm at work, check this (http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=5b60c6d95369559f9cb23a42fc1939956824c245 )video out from the Times based on the article.

[MadsenOMC]

They're much too close for me.

McCain the ethics reformer.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-mccain-davis_tuejun17,0,5274429.story
chicagotribune.com
CAMPAIGN 2008
Group muddies McCain message
Non-profit bent rules while supporting his agenda, raising money

By Andrew Zajac

Washington Bureau

June 17, 2008

WASHINGTON — Allies of Sen. John McCain opened a Washington think tank in 2001 to promote transparency and accountability in government, a signature issue for the Arizona Republican after his presidential primary loss to George W. Bush.

For the next seven years, the non-profit Reform Institute churned out position papers and offered expert testimony on campaign finance reform, the need for bipartisanship and other issues, frequently supporting McCain's positions.

But behind the scenes, the institute's practices have at times arguably been at odds with its reformist message, and with McCain's political identity as an enemy of special interests. In fact, the Reform Institute has stretched and may have broken rules governing charitable organizations, according to experts on tax law.

The institute has twice omitted the names of donors in IRS filings. IRS rules require that charities identify their contributors to government regulators.

In 2003 and 2004, a telecommunications company with business before the McCain-led Senate Commerce Committee contributed a total of $200,000 to the institute. The contributions were solicited by Rick Davis, a veteran Washington lobbyist who was president of the institute from 2003 through 2005 and who is now McCain's campaign manager.

Davis is among more than a dozen Reform Institute advisers, directors or consultants who have played roles in McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. And while the institute says it is non-political, critics say its agenda has closely mirrored key elements of the McCain platform.

"Even if they didn't say 'vote for McCain,' their activities promoted and enhanced McCain," said Frances Hill, director of the program on taxation at the University of Miami Law School. "That is something that a tax-exempt organization can't do.

"There are red flags all over this," Hill said.

Davis declined to comment. In a written statement, McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said that while the institute was set up by people "inspired by Sen. McCain's vision of reform ... its mission was non-political. ... It is false to suggest that the organization was intended to serve any political purpose or confer any political benefit."

Hill said it is impossible to make a conclusive determination of wrongdoing without a careful review of the institute's operations.

"The question is if there are specific violations here or a really disturbing pattern of, at the very least, an absence of good judgment," she said.

Ensnared in the Keating Five influence-peddling scandal early in his Senate career, McCain became a loud proponent of ethics reform, vowing to break up "the iron triangle of big money, special-interest lobbyists and the legislation they buy."

But both McCain and his presumptive Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who has ties to the Illinois political establishment, have struggled to meet the lofty standards they've set for themselves as reformers. McCain has had difficulty squaring his stance as a maverick with media reports highlighting the key roles played in his campaign by Washington insiders.

Five lobbyists recently left senior positions in his campaign, and McCain has imposed conflict-of-interest rules aimed at curbing ties between campaign officials and special interests.

'Muddies' the message
McCain's best-known legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act of 2002, aimed to choke the flow of so-called soft money—essentially unregulated contributions from corporations, labor unions or individuals to political parties.

But in aligning himself with the Reform Institute, McCain has benefited from a stream of special-interest funding similar to the soft money he's scorned.

Unlike campaign funds or political action committees, which cannot accept money directly from businesses and can accept only limited amounts from individuals, the Reform Institute, as a charity, can accept unlimited, tax-deductible sums from virtually any source with little public disclosure.

The ability to donate to a non-profit linked to an elected official, with no public reporting requirements, creates opportunities to curry favor, said Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan government watchdog.

"I think the Reform Institute has done some good work," Allison said, but McCain's links to the group "sort of muddies [its] message."

Although not legally required to publicly disclose its donors, the Reform Institute, which had collected $4.8 million through 2006, does post a list of its contributors, with the sizes of contributions in ranges, on its Web site.

But the list does not include two donors whose identities the institute has withheld even from the IRS, in apparent violation of agency regulations.

Charities like the Reform Institute are required to identify contributors to the IRS to justify its tax-exempt status.

In 2003 and 2005, the institute declined to identify a donor unless specifically asked by the IRS, citing the possibility that the agency might mistakenly release the names.

Davis was president of the think tank at the time, but Rogers referred questions about the donations to the institute.

Reform Institute Executive Director Cecilia Martinez said the organization was simply honoring contributors' demands for anonymity.

An IRS spokesman declined to comment on the legality of withholding contributors' names from the agency in any specific case.

The spokesman referred to a section of law stating that a tax-exempt organization "shall furnish annually ... the total of the contributions and gifts received by it during the year, and the names and addresses of all substantial contributors."

Omitting the names of donors is a violation—though it's one the IRS does not vigorously enforce, according to Bruce Hopkins, a Kansas City tax attorney and author of "The Law of Tax Exempt Organizations."

"Technically it's not permissible, but organizations do it and the IRS does not have the resources to do anything about it," Hopkins said.

Donations in question
The 2003 donation, which was in excess of $50,000, came from a Republican elected official who did not want McCain to know that he had given the institute the money, said Martinez, adding that "we have no plans to disclose" either contribution.

From its inception, the Reform Institute's operations have been closely intertwined with McCain's legislative and political ambitions.

Three members of the institute's inaugural four-person board worked on McCain's 2000 campaign. McCain was chairman of the institute's advisory committee from 2001 until 2005, and for most of that time the institute was lodged at the same Alexandria, Va., office building as McCain's Straight Talk America leadership PAC, his Senate campaign committee and Davis Manafort Inc., Davis' lobbying business. Davis is on leave from the firm.

Davis collected at least $395,000 in salary and consulting fees during his three-year stint at the institute. Carla Eudy, a key McCain fundraiser, collected $294,000 for serving as a consultant and treasurer. Both Davis and Eudy have acknowledged using McCain's donor lists and name to raise money for and publicize the institute.

In 2005, as McCain mulled another White House bid, he stepped down as chairman of the institute's advisory committee. Davis also left the group.

The departures occurred "precisely to avoid the suggestion that the Reform Institute had any connection with a possible presidential run," Rogers, the campaign spokesman, said.

At the same time, the institute's agenda broadened to include climate stewardship, homeland security and Immigration reform—which all would be part of McCain's campaign platform.

A Reform Institute consultant, John Raidt, who formerly worked on McCain's Senate staff, registered to lobby Congress on the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship bill. Raidt, now an adviser to the McCain campaign, was paid $145,000 at the institute.

The departures also followed news accounts highlighting fundraising among the kind of special interests whose influence McCain and the institute professed to want to limit.

At least two major donors to the institute, Cablevision and EchoStar Communications, have had business before the Senate Commerce Committee, headed by McCain from 1997-2001 and from 2003 to 2005.

EchoStar, run by longtime McCain backer Charles Ergen, gave $100,000 to help start the institute in 2001. Cablevision gave the institute $100,000 in 2003 and another $100,000 in 2004 as McCain urged acceptance of a pricing plan sought by the New York cable giant, according to a 2005 Associated Press report.

The donations were solicited by Davis from Cablevision Chairman Charles Dolan in May 2003, a week after Dolan testified about the pricing plan before McCain's Senate panel, AP reported. McCain at the time said the donations had nothing to do with his endorsement of Cablevision's pricing proposal.

But the timing of the contributions raises questions about violations of Senate ethics rules and about whether the institute was abusing its non-profit status by cashing in on McCain's public service, according to the University of Miami's Hill.

"Saying 'we do not engage in politics' is an attempt to deflect attention from what the organization actually does," Hill said. "The question is 'What does the organization actually do,' not its [non-profit] status."

Among the Reform Institute's biggest donors is the Chartwell Charitable Foundation, a philanthropy controlled by A. Jerrold Perenchio, until 2007 chairman and chief executive of Spanish-language broadcaster Univision, and a national finance co-chairman of McCain's presidential campaign.

Univision was among several broadcasters that employed Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist whose friendship with McCain in the late 1990s prompted a top aide to warn her away lest the relationship undermine his reputation as a foe of special interests.

According to IRS filings, the foundation gave the institute $100,000 in 2002 and $375,000 in 2006—about 10 percent of the institute's funding.

For about three years, until fall 2006, Chartwell was included on the Reform Institute's Web site list of donors.

That listing was "in error," said Martinez, the institute's executive director. Even though Chartwell's grants are a matter of public record, its name was removed from the institute's donor list.

"We honored their request for anonymity," Martinez said.

[MadsenOMC]

It's also time to dispel the notion that McCain is stronger on national security than Obama. The rhetoric just isn't true. In the words of Gen. Wesley Clark:


"I know he's trying to get traction by seeking to play to what he thinks is his strong suit of national security," Clark said of McCain while speaking from his office in Little Rock, Arkansas. "The truth is that, in national security terms, he's largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or [in managing] his own congressional staff. It's not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is.

McCain's weakness is that he's always been for the use of force, force and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort. ... When he talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes ditties about bombing Iran, he betrays a disrespect for the office of the presidency."

[Homyrrh]

It's also time to dispel the notion that McCain is stronger on national security than Obama. The rhetoric just isn't true. In the words of Gen. Wesley Clark:


"I know he's trying to get traction by seeking to play to what he thinks is his strong suit of national security," Clark said of McCain while speaking from his office in Little Rock, Arkansas. "The truth is that, in national security terms, he's largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or [in managing] his own congressional staff. It's not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is.

McCain's weakness is that he's always been for the use of force, force and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort. ... When he talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes ditties about bombing Iran, he betrays a disrespect for the office of the presidency."
Roger Goodell for president...:rolleyes:

It's foolish to run an administration, not so much a campaign, solely on attempting to differentiate one's self from any given individual, regardless.

There is fault in the execution, not the ideology.

[MadsenOMC]

Roger Goodell for president...:rolleyes:

It's foolish to run an administration, not so much a campaign, solely on attempting to differentiate one's self from any given individual, regardless.

There is fault in the execution, not the ideology.

Roger Goodell? What ideology?

[The Heart Collector]

:rolleyes:
.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Stop posting rolleyes as some sort of grand refutation of anything.

[MadsenOMC]

I too hate the eye rolling. I immediately tune out and find it hard to take the argument seriously.

[Homyrrh]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Stop posting rolleyes as some sort of grand refutation of anything.
Actually, uh, Roger Goodell's the NFL Commissioner. It was some cross-referenced humor in reply to Madsen's remakr about "force, force, force". Goodell has a (good) rep for being a hardass. It was basically irrelevant.

So...don't make an unfounded comment to poorly attempt to project some sort of elitism on me.

As for ideologies, I was trying to say that while Bush's application of a certain system may be justifiably faulted, the ideology cannot be abandoned just to secure a presidency. As politicians go, it happens all the time, yes, but it is still a detriment. I think that makes sense (?).

[MadsenOMC]

What ideology can't be abandoned? Preemptive war?

[Homyrrh]

Well, possibly war in general. I feel a lot of people are opposed to the ideology of war solely because Bush created some clusterfuck in the Middle East recently. It's alright to have the conviction that the ongoing combat in Iraq is "wrong", but to refute the very premise of war is dually and inarguably ignorant and naive.

[MadsenOMC]

Clark didn't and doesn't refute the very premise of war. I'm sure you read his quote, but he said that in his experience it should always be a last resort. That is not refuting the very idea of war.

[Homyrrh]

It was no reference to the quote (yeah I read but didn't pay much mind to it). I'm more so conveying my disgruntled sentiment with the general consensus that is against McCain because of "similarities" to Bush. He is a conservative, a Republican, an old white guy, etc. He served for years, and I believe spent more time in a POW camp than Bush did in the Air National Guard (?).

In all, people subconciously equate a politician with another for reasons other than their diverse individual diplomacies, and instead feel since war X sucked, so will War Y.

And honestly, I wouldn't want a general other he who believes war should be the last resort.

[MadsenOMC]

I have a lot of reasons for being against McCain. That he is similar to Bush is one of them, and I believe it is a totally relevant reason.

Honestly, I think Clark's opinion of war is a lot more credible than yours. It is very easy for someone like you to claim that war shouldn't be a last resort. Have you ever seen one up close and personal?

[shoe1985]

Bush and McCain are two different people. They both share similar ideas. Of course they won't be 100% the same, but they are close, closer than say Obama and Bush would be. People are sick of the same old thing, and we need change. We need a strong leader to help lead this country into the future.

It is obvious, Homyrrh, that you are in support for McCain. It is your opinion, but a lot of us don't believe he is right for the job. The country is headed in the wrong direction, and McCain is in the party that lead us in that direction, so he will take a lot of heat for it.

[MadsenOMC]

He also has failed to make a compelling case for McCain.

[Cop No. 633]

Giving large corporations a permanent tax cut is enough to make me not want to vote for McCain, aside from his views on the war and foreign policy. McCain is similar in that he will carry Bush's ideas with his term simply because he wants to be President. He's pandered to the Evangelical vote and played himself off as somewhat religious just to get them. Hell, both Bush and McCain aren't even up-to-date on things such as technology. Who calls Google, The Google? I'm not saying he should be handicapped for that, but I want a President who is at least a man of his time... somebody whose head is thinking in this millennium and not in 1950's ideals that most people don't even live by in today's world.

One point I want to get off, relating to McCain's tax cut is that I honestly don't know why people are so against taxes. They go to the country's budget. If you give a corporation a tax break, that's less money that goes from that company to our gov't. All we have after that is a blind trust that the company will use its surplus of money from the tax cut in our country, and there's no guarantee for that at all. In reality, it's only going to make the CEO's have more money in their pocket and not in our government. There's nothing wrong with taxes if they're used properly. Obviously, right now, they're not when the budget for the military would make Genghis Khan blush.

But the real problem is that we're shipping factory jobs overseas thanks to our corporate friends, who would rather pay less and take away worker's rights. If we had those jobs here, and they paid well, it could definitely help with the economy and help people who have a hard time getting a job. It would diminish the width of the CEO's pockets, but how much money does a person really need? What's 1 billion dollars to 4.5 billion? That's just pure greed right there. No person should even really be making that much money in my opinion.

Because of business tactics like this being applied to even the way our government is run, we're now in a recession. I mean look at us, we've got China lending us money because we're in debt. This is supposed to be the greatest nation, but we're more like a gambling addict whose asking his bookie for another loan. We just need a little more to get us out of this slump.

As for what Wesley Clark has said, I have to say, I'd rather have a General who thinks before he acts. Going to war should be the last option. There is nothing wrong with negotiations. If we didn't have that, the entire world would be in deep shit already.

[The Heart Collector]

Considering McCain's stance on rights of prisoners in the 'war' on terror, I can say without any doubt that supporting him is the equivalent of taking a shit on top of the Constitution, and human rights in general. He is simply indefensible and anyone voting for him should be deeply ashamed.

[QUENTIN]

Well, possibly war in general. I feel a lot of people are opposed to the ideology of war solely because Bush created some clusterfuck in the Middle East recently. It's alright to have the conviction that the ongoing combat in Iraq is "wrong", but to refute the very premise of war is dually and inarguably ignorant and naive.

What? Are you bloodthirsty or do you just have no regard for human life? How is being anti-war, against all episodes in which large groups of people mass murder each other and entire societies try to wipe one another out, "inarguably ignorant and naive"? Pacifism is the only truly decent, humane, righteous stance one can take. Being for any war is supporting the deaths of a whole lot of innocent people and that is inarguably wrong. All wars are ultimately unnecessary and had other means of resolution. Please explain how you can be so pro-war in general that you think opposing war is some dangerous and ill-advised belief.

Also, probably not a good idea to label a group of people "ignorant and naive" for holding a belief about war when you're under the impression that dropping the atomic bombs was necessary and a good idea.

[The Heart Collector]

You're replying to the guy who does not approve of giving prisoners the writ of habeas corpus.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

We're talking about a guy who didn't even read the Iraq authorization bill because going to war was apparently "the right thing to do." Even if he knew the arguments for and against, not reading it should immediately disqualify him from the presidency.

That said, even though I've come to dislike the man, I will never be able to dislike him as much as Bush. Whereas one is a phony Boy Scout, the other is wretched to his absolute core.

[Homyrrh]

I have a lot of reasons for being against McCain. That he is similar to Bush is one of them, and I believe it is a totally relevant reason.

Honestly, I think Clark's opinion of war is a lot more credible than yours. It is very easy for someone like you to claim that war shouldn't be a last resort. Have you ever seen one up close and personal?
I think my last paragrpah was at least an attempt to second Clark's view; I wouldn't want an American general to not consider his profession as the last result. This is good. Clark's remark is good. Et cetera.
Bush and McCain are two different people. They both share similar ideas. Of course they won't be 100% the same, but they are close, closer than say Obama and Bush would be. People are sick of the same old thing, and we need change. We need a strong leader to help lead this country into the future.

It is obvious, Homyrrh, that you are in support for McCain. It is your opinion, but a lot of us don't believe he is right for the job. The country is headed in the wrong direction, and McCain is in the party that lead us in that direction, so he will take a lot of heat for it.
Yes, but aside from any refutations to the contrary, I feel the thread is digressing from my point; while I support McCain, my point is to illustrate my frustration with what I feel is a common sentiment that war, while horrible, is inexcusable. One voter cannot dislike a candidate because war exists, however poorly his predecessor may have misused it.
Giving large corporations a permanent tax cut is enough to make me not want to vote for McCain, aside from his views on the war and foreign policy. McCain is similar in that he will carry Bush's ideas with his term simply because he wants to be President. He's pandered to the Evangelical vote and played himself off as somewhat religious just to get them. Hell, both Bush and McCain aren't even up-to-date on things such as technology. Who calls Google, The Google? I'm not saying he should be handicapped for that, but I want a President who is at least a man of his time... somebody whose head is thinking in this millennium and not in 1950's ideals that most people don't even live by in today's world.

One point I want to get off, relating to McCain's tax cut is that I honestly don't know why people are so against taxes. They go to the country's budget. If you give a corporation a tax break, that's less money that goes from that company to our gov't. All we have after that is a blind trust that the company will use its surplus of money from the tax cut in our country, and there's no guarantee for that at all. In reality, it's only going to make the CEO's have more money in their pocket and not in our government. There's nothing wrong with taxes if they're used properly. Obviously, right now, they're not when the budget for the military would make Genghis Khan blush.

But the real problem is that we're shipping factory jobs overseas thanks to our corporate friends, who would rather pay less and take away worker's rights. If we had those jobs here, and they paid well, it could definitely help with the economy and help people who have a hard time getting a job. It would diminish the width of the CEO's pockets, but how much money does a person really need? What's 1 billion dollars to 4.5 billion? That's just pure greed right there. No person should even really be making that much money in my opinion.

Because of business tactics like this being applied to even the way our government is run, we're now in a recession. I mean look at us, we've got China lending us money because we're in debt. This is supposed to be the greatest nation, but we're more like a gambling addict whose asking his bookie for another loan. We just need a little more to get us out of this slump.

As for what Wesley Clark has said, I have to say, I'd rather have a General who thinks before he acts. Going to war should be the last option. There is nothing wrong with negotiations. If we didn't have that, the entire world would be in deep shit already.
It's almost awkward how technologically inane McCain is.

I don't understand the tax breaks entirely, though I believe that the money saved by Big Business would in theory encourage economic growth (i.e.--what airline and/or auto manufacturer doesn't honestly need a few billion stacks just to start thinking about black?). Overall, it's a bit sketchy, but Obama's spend-beyond-your-means theory perturbs me even further.

Again, ditto on Clark.
Considering McCain's stance on rights of prisoners in the 'war' on terror, I can say without any doubt that supporting him is the equivalent of taking a shit on top of the Constitution, and human rights in general. He is simply indefensible and anyone voting for him should be deeply ashamed.
Yup, exactly.
What? Are you bloodthirsty or do you just have no regard for human life? How is being anti-war, against all episodes in which large groups of people mass murder each other and entire societies try to wipe one another out, "inarguably ignorant and naive"? Pacifism is the only truly decent, humane, righteous stance one can take. Being for any war is supporting the deaths of a whole lot of innocent people and that is inarguably wrong. All wars are ultimately unnecessary and had other means of resolution. Please explain how you can be so pro-war in general that you think opposing war is some dangerous and ill-advised belief.

Also, probably not a good idea to label a group of people "ignorant and naive" for holding a belief about war when you're under the impression that dropping the atomic bombs was necessary and a good idea.
Hmm. My ideology, despite any previous lack of clarity on my part, essentially mirrors that of General Clark's quote. While war mongering is despicable, an unnecessary evil that transcends any apparent morality, to denounce war as something that can be avoided is "ignorant and naive". While pacifism is a principle I openly consider as ideal, I feel I'm being beyond political, realistic actually, in saying war is a fact of global diplomacy.

And I figure your remarks about my disregard for human life were either a misunderstanding or a tool for structuring a point.

And both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the msot unfortunate of necessary evils; I believe this is another discussion.
You're replying to the guy who does not approve of giving prisoners the writ of habeas corpus.
Again.

[MadsenOMC]

Homyrrh, what you have entirely failed to do is present any reason someone should vote for McCain. The Obama supporters here have been loud and clear. You casually mention supporting McCain, but you haven't said why. Please don't tell me it's national security, because that is a load of shit. There is no credible reason to believe that McCain would protect America better than Obama. None. Being a POW doesn't have anything to do with the issue. I can't understand anyone who isn't a rabid right wing warmonger supporting McCain, so maybe you can enlighten me.

[MadsenOMC]

More reasons why McCain can't/won't win. This is from the Financial Times. Also, a new poll shows Obama with huge leads among independents and women, two crucial groups of voters. 52% to 30% among independents and 51% to 36% among women.


McCain risks ‘flip-flop’ jibes by voters

By Edward Luce and Andrew Ward in Washington

Published: June 17 2008 19:32 | Last updated: June 18 2008 07:36

Nobody is yet calling John McCain a “flip-flopper”. But the Republican nominee’s increasingly finely balanced efforts to shore up his support among the shrinking Republican base while reaching out to independents is starting to fire up the critics.

On Tuesday morning, he launched an advertisement reminding voters of his repeated clashes with President George W. Bush over climate change, which Mr McCain believes is real and requires urgent action.

In the afternoon, he delivered a speech to the oil industry in Houston, calling for a lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling in order to reduce petrol prices.

Mr McCain’s shift on offshore drilling – which contrasts with his strong support for upholding the moratorium in his 2000 bid for the Republican nomination – could further chip away at his reputation for being a “straight talker”.

Some even compare his shifting stances with those of John Kerry, the 2004 *Democratic candidate, who was skewered by Mr Bush for his contortions over the Iraq war.

“John McCain was against Mr Bush’s tax cuts before he was for them, and now he is in favour of offshore drilling after he was against it,” says Thomas Mann at the Brookings Institution think-tank. “If Senator McCain continues to try to appeal to the base and to the centre simultaneously in this way, then his straight-talk brand is going to suffer.”

Mr McCain’s dilemma is real. Unlike Mr Bush in 2004, Mr McCain cannot win the election simply by turning out the Republican faithful, because the number of Republicans has shrunk dramatically. Since 2004, public support has shifted heavily towards the Democrats.

However, nor can he win without the Republican base, much of which remains sceptical of his conservative credentials. They point to his history of support for campaign finance reform, his continuing opposition to new drilling in the Arctic and the perception that he is only lukewarm in his opposition to abortion.

Mr McCain’s attempts to reassure the base have led him to water down some long-held principles. As a former prisoner-of-war who suffered torture in Vietnam, he has long called for the US detention centre in Guantán*amo Bay, Cuba, to be closed and for torture to be banned.

But last week he criticised the US Supreme Court for “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country” after it ruled that detainees should be allowed to challenge their detentions in US courts.

He has also moved towards more conservative territory on the Supreme Court – one of the main issues for many evangelical Christian voters. Until recently he was considered a moderate, having been part of the “Gang of 14” that secured a bipartisan compromise over judicial nominations in the Senate three years ago. But recently he has stressed his commitment to nominate conservative judges – raising the possibility that the Supreme Court would tilt decisively to the right in a McCain presidency.

Some Republicans think he is jeopardising his support among independent voters, whom most analysts think will hold the whip hand over this year’s presidential contest. They point to a new poll showing Barack Obama, his Democratic rival, leading him on centre-ground concerns, such as his ability to stand up to lobbyists and handle the energy crisis.

“John McCain is being misled by the Republican establishment who want him to embrace the issues they support,” said Matt Towery, who was a senior aide to Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker.

“I cannot decide whether John McCain is being duped by the Republican establishment that really doesn’t want him to win, or whether his strategists are grossly misreading the concerns of the American people.”

Mr Towery’s former boss, Mr Gingrich, is spearheading an online petition to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, which, he says, is the single biggest voter concern. With petrol prices at a historic average high of $4.07 (€2.62, £2.08) a gallon, Mr McCain is probably more in tune with public opinion on this than Mr Obama, who backs the ban.

“If McCain had changed his position six months ago, you might have seen it as pandering to the base,” said Vin Weber, a Republican strategist. “But when the facts change, you’re allowed to change your mind.”

[Homyrrh]

As it's inevitable this thread has become as much, and with all name-calling aside, I support McCain partly because I cannot bring myself to take Obama seriously. McCain has several things that would lead me to cast him my vote. He has legitimate experience, a better grasp of reality specfically regarding the war and economy, does not support that most heinous of crimes abortion, adheres to a general conservative ideology, does not fraternize with known terrorists, served in the military, has interesting policies for immigration, is notably more intelligent than is given credit for, chooses at least some of the time to elaborate on his, um, "change", and will ultimately not die in office. And that national security "bullshit".

Now that debate practice is over, Mr. Madsen, can I go back to my thread?
Hold steady there Madsen, I never said he'd win. Just that he should.

[Homyrrh]

Homyrrh, what you have entirely failed to do is present any reason someone should vote for McCain. The Obama supporters here have been loud and clear. You casually mention supporting McCain, but you haven't said why. Please don't tell me it's national security, because that is a load of shit. There is no credible reason to believe that McCain would protect America better than Obama. None. Being a POW doesn't have anything to do with the issue. I can't understand anyone who isn't a rabid right wing warmonger supporting McCain, so maybe you can enlighten me.
As it's inevitable this thread has become as much, and with all name-calling aside, I support McCain partly because I cannot bring myself to take Obama seriously. McCain has several things that would lead me to cast him my vote. He has legitimate experience, a better grasp of reality specfically regarding the war and economy, does not support that most heinous of crimes abortion, adheres to a general conservative ideology, does not fraternize with known terrorists, served in the military, has interesting policies for immigration, is notably more intelligent than is given credit for, chooses at least some of the time to elaborate on his, um, "change", and will ultimately not die in office. And that national security "bullshit".

Now that debate practice is over, Mr. Madsen, can I go back to my thread?

[MadsenOMC]

Hold steady there Madsen, I never said he'd win. Just that he should.

Only if you want this country to continue going to shit. I have higher hopes for America. McCain is most definitely not the answer to our current problems. He will merely continue down the same path.

[MadsenOMC]

As it's inevitable this thread has become as much, and with all name-calling aside, I support McCain partly because I cannot bring myself to take Obama seriously. McCain has several things that would lead me to cast him my vote. He has legitimate experience, a better grasp of reality specfically regarding the war and economy, does not support that most heinous of crimes abortion, adheres to a general conservative ideology, does not fraternize with known terrorists, served in the military, has interesting policies for immigration, is notably more intelligent than is given credit for, chooses at least some of the time to elaborate on his, um, "change", and will ultimately not die in office. And that national security "bullshit".

Now that debate practice is over, Mr. Madsen, can I go back to my thread?

You can be such an asshole at times, which is ironic considering your past attempts at being some kind of a peacekeeper. Was I out of line in asking you to provide legitimate reasons to support McCain? I thought it was an honest question.

Your political knowledge is seriously lacking. McCain has a better grasp of the economy? Is that a joke? He told the Wall Street Journal editorial board that he does not understand the economy. He has said this more than once.

A better understanding of the war? Is that why Joe Lieberman needed to correct him about Iran allowing Al Qaeda into the country? Or how about him lying to the American people about that Baghdad market being safe to walk through, even though he did it with armed troops and helicopters?

Obama doesn't fraternize with known terrorists. That makes you sound like Bill O'Reilly. If you believe that, I feel sorry for you.

We have already covered the national security issue. Despite GOP rhetoric, this country is not safer with a Republican president. Who was in office on 9/11 again? Oh yeah, a Republican.

You need to read more. A lot more. And open up that mind. You are young, so hope is not lost.

[shoe1985]

As it's inevitable this thread has become as much, and with all name-calling aside, I support McCain partly because I cannot bring myself to take Obama seriously. McCain has several things that would lead me to cast him my vote. He has legitimate experience, a better grasp of reality specfically regarding the war and economy, does not support that most heinous of crimes abortion, adheres to a general conservative ideology, does not fraternize with known terrorists, served in the military, has interesting policies for immigration, is notably more intelligent than is given credit for, chooses at least some of the time to elaborate on his, um, "change", and will ultimately not die in office. And that national security "bullshit".

Now that debate practice is over, Mr. Madsen, can I go back to my thread?

I love the abortion talk. In my opinion, the baby isn't born, it is developing still inside the womb. How can you tell someone, maybe that is raped, or under 18, or poor, that she has to have a baby? The baby could be born into the worst conditions possible, but oh it is ok to bring them into this world. I support abortion because I have seen so many people come into such terrible lives, and live terrible lives. They go on to have kids, and those kids have terrible lives. I am not wishing them dead, but things could be so different.

It is like gay marriage, who cares what two people do? If two people want to get married, let them. Gender should not matter. It is 2008, we should be above this by now.

Experience, ha, great point there. Didn't George Bush have experience? It is great to have experience, but when our country is currently in a rut, we need new ideas to get us to the future. We can't keep doing things the same. We need someone to come in and lead us, and not go off about war. We should be a planet, not just a country, that can come together, and support each other. War should not even be mentioned.

Economy goes with my experience comment. I hate to say this, but McCain's age doesn't help him with the economy. By this I mean, he will things the old way, when we need to change our ways of doing things. The economy is suffering because of poor leadership. McCain is too similar to Bush, and foreign nations don't like this. If we are to get out of the rut we are in, we need a strong leader to come in and work with those leaders.

We are so screwed on immigration right now, it isn't funny. Neither candidate has a real answer for it. I am willing to admit that. I believe we need reform. If you are not here legally, guess what, get out, and go through the process. We put a process in so we could control our population somewhat. If we went to any of these other countries and stayed, we would not get anywhere near the help those that come here do.

All I here anymore is how we need to open up drilling in Alaska or Florida. Do you know how much those states would lose in money from tourism? Maybe it is time to follow England, hell New York, and add mass transit to our country. If we were to put in more trains and subways, maybe add more bus stops, we would become less dependent on foreign oil. Yes, we would still use it, but you would see a drop thanks in part of people using the trains and subways. We could even put more money into finding a new way to run our vehicles.

I see this election as finding a leader who can lead us into the future. Bush has everyone at odds thinks to his ideas, and we cannot afford to keep going in that direction. McCain, for me at least, is too similar. I have heard he and Obama speak, and Obama draws me in, and gives me hope. I never felt strong about Bush, and I feel the same about McCain now. I used to be a McCain supporter, but the more I see and hear him speak, the more I feel he is wrong.

[Homyrrh]

You can be such an asshole at times, which is ironic considering your past attempts at being some kind of a peacekeeper. Was I out of line in asking you to provide legitimate reasons to support McCain? I thought it was an honest question.

Your political knowledge is seriously lacking. McCain has a better grasp of the economy? Is that a joke? He told the Wall Street Journal editorial board that he does not understand the economy. He has said this more than once.

A better understanding of the war? Is that why Joe Lieberman needed to correct him about Iran allowing Al Qaeda into the country? Or how about him lying to the American people about that Baghdad market being safe to walk through, even though he did it with armed troops and helicopters?

Obama doesn't fraternize with known terrorists. That makes you sound like Bill O'Reilly. If you believe that, I feel sorry for you.

We have already covered the national security issue. Despite GOP rhetoric, this country is not safer with a Republican president. Who was in office on 9/11 again? Oh yeah, a Republican.

You need to read more. A lot more. And open up that mind. You are young, so hope is not lost.
An asshole indeed. As ever "rabid rightwing warmonger" may be. :) So the "honesty" of your question is disreputable. I apologize for falling to the level despite my earlier cries to the cotnrary.

Bill O'Reilly? I guess I don't take that as the insult it may have intended to be, but fear not. My weekly news magazine subscriptions, which are written in the same plain English I read and write and watch daily, TIME and Newsweek included, keep me informed and keen. My political knowledge may not be lacking, though my appeal to your own subjective ideals are. But you're right, it's fraternized, past tense. Free pass, right? Pity me.

My national security remark's much too vague, and you're right about Bush and 9/11, though he was a generally incompetent leader even regardless of party. But to say the general liberal leniency towards terrorism, border control, internal threats is NOT inferior to that of the GOP, you are mistaken. I have nothing to hide as a legal citizen, why should I fear anything?

Is McCain economically incompetent? All but entirely. But my understanding is that like each of his forty-three predecessors he has a cabinet and advisory board responsible for such. Obama, meanwhile, has set a planto cut taxes and raise spending. There is NO logic in that. No even flawed logic, just no logic.

And what, exactly, should I be reading?

[SpoonMan999]

You can be such an asshole at times, which is ironic considering your past attempts at being some kind of a peacekeeper. Was I out of line in asking you to provide legitimate reasons to support McCain? I thought it was an honest question.

Your political knowledge is seriously lacking. McCain has a better grasp of the economy? Is that a joke? He told the Wall Street Journal editorial board that he does not understand the economy. He has said this more than once.

A better understanding of the war? Is that why Joe Lieberman needed to correct him about Iran allowing Al Qaeda into the country? Or how about him lying to the American people about that Baghdad market being safe to walk through, even though he did it with armed troops and helicopters?

Obama doesn't fraternize with known terrorists. That makes you sound like Bill O'Reilly. If you believe that, I feel sorry for you.

We have already covered the national security issue. Despite GOP rhetoric, this country is not safer with a Republican president. Who was in office on 9/11 again? Oh yeah, a Republican.

You need to read more. A lot more. And open up that mind. You are young, so hope is not lost.

I like how you use Joe Lieberman to smear McCain when in fact Lieberman supports McCain and has left the Democratic party to become an independent.

Legitimate reasons to support McCain:
-With so many lay-offs the tax cuts for businesses will stop people from losing their jobs left and right and make it more affordable for companies to start hiring the people who already did lose said jobs.
-Obama's "let's stop the war and bring down the deficit by spending three times what we are in Iraq" economic plan makes no sense. How are you going to get us out of debt by spending more money?
-He supports increasing our own supply of oil but still maintaining a sense of environmental responsibility, despite massive criticism from Republicans.
-He understands the need to fight some times and the futility of talking to certain people.
-Terrorists being held don't deserve the basic rights that you and I have, what they do is deplorable. With the loop holes inherit in our judicial system they should not have the opportunity to exploit it.
-He isn't associated with known terrorists or racist extremists.
-And lastly, he's not Barack Obama.

[MadsenOMC]

I like how you use Joe Lieberman to smear McCain when in fact Lieberman supports McCain and has left the Democratic party to become an independent.

Legitimate reasons to support McCain:
-With so many lay-offs the tax cuts for businesses will stop people from losing their jobs left and right and make it more affordable for companies to start hiring the people who already did lose said jobs.
-Obama's "let's stop the war and bring down the deficit by spending three times what we are in Iraq" economic plan makes no sense. How are you going to get us out of debt by spending more money?
-He supports increasing our own supply of oil but still maintaining a sense of environmental responsibility, despite massive criticism from Republicans.
-He understands the need to fight some times and the futility of talking to certain people.
-Terrorists being held don't deserve the basic rights that you and I have, what they do is deplorable. With the loop holes inherit in our judicial system they should not have the opportunity to exploit it.
-He isn't associated with known terrorists or racist extremists.
-And lastly, he's not Barack Obama.

Where are your reading comprehension skills? I didn't use Lieberman to smear McCain. I used him to make a point about McCain and Iraq. There's a big difference. Everyone knows that Lieberman is a McCain supporter.

I'm still waiting for a good reason to support McCain over Obama. Your reasons are the same old recycled shit and hardly legitimate. They either omit the truth or twist it.

Bottom line: there is no legitimate reason to vote for John McCain.

[shoe1985]

I like how you use Joe Lieberman to smear McCain when in fact Lieberman supports McCain and has left the Democratic party to become an independent.

Legitimate reasons to support McCain:
-With so many lay-offs the tax cuts for businesses will stop people from losing their jobs left and right and make it more affordable for companies to start hiring the people who already did lose said jobs.

Don't make me laugh. Did the tax cuts help before when the Congress and Bush was throwing them out left and right? Nope, instead, companies kept pushing their jobs overseas. Too bad it is still cheaper to make products overseas.

-Obama's "let's stop the war and bring down the deficit by spending three times what we are in Iraq" economic plan makes no sense. How are you going to get us out of debt by spending more money?

At least the money would be going to help the economy instead of putting together a country that can pay their own way. They are making enough money from oil, they can start funding their own country.

You need to spend money to make money.

-He supports increasing our own supply of oil but still maintaining a sense of environmental responsibility, despite massive criticism from Republicans.

What is so wrong with thinking about the environment? You can drill and be cautious of how you do it. Like the Republicans were doing a great job in control.

-He understands the need to fight some times and the futility of talking to certain people.

Yes, lets go over to Iraq and take over. Who attacked us again? Oh yeah, not Iraq. What involvement did Iraq have in 9/11? None. In fact, the majority of the hijackers were Saudis, a little odd we don't attack them instead.

-Terrorists being held don't deserve the basic rights that you and I have, what they do is deplorable. With the loop holes inherit in our judicial system they should not have the opportunity to exploit it.

Lets see, we go over to their countries, and tell them they must run their country a certain way. What we might see as deplorable, what we do is seen as deplorable to them. It is their way of life, and we can't keep pushing our ways on others. That is what creates angry people in those countries. They follow a strict religious following.

-He isn't associated with known terrorists or racist extremists.
-And lastly, he's not Barack Obama.

McCain's buddies will be coming into the limelight. The life of both people will be coming out now, and I am sure we will hear the negatives more than the positives.



Does anyone even know the issues or just like tossing out crap? Review the voting records, look at what these candidates side with. People are going to bash the candidate they dislike without any real footing. Like SpoonMan999, is someone that obviously is going to throw words around without much backing. I have no problem if you like McCain or Obama, or another candidate, just make sure you back up your stuff.

[SpoonMan999]

Where are your reading comprehension skills? I didn't use Lieberman to smear McCain. I used him to make a point about McCain and Iraq. There's a big difference. Everyone knows that Lieberman is a McCain supporter.

I'm still waiting for a good reason to support McCain over Obama. Your reasons are the same old recycled shit and hardly legitimate. They either omit the truth or twist it.

Bottom line: there is no legitimate reason to vote for John McCain.

He walked down the street with an escort because maybe his position right now would make him a big target. You know, something someone with a bomb on their chest might go out of their way for.

And how are we supposed to present our reasons if you just pass them off as illegitimate? This is your argument in a nutshell,

McCain supporter: "Well, I feel his stance on drilling is the right way to go and I agree with his support of the war."
Madsen: "You're wrong because I say you are."

[MadsenOMC]

He walked down the street with an escort because maybe his position right now would make him a big target. You know, something someone with a bomb on their chest might go out of their way for.

And how are we supposed to present our reasons if you just pass them off as illegitimate? This is your argument in a nutshell,

McCain supporter: "Well, I feel his stance on drilling is the right way to go and I agree with his support of the war."
Madsen: "You're wrong because I say you are."

He told people the market in Baghdad was as safe as a market in America, and that you could just walk freely. He failed to mention his huge military escort. He lied to the American people in order to make them believe he was right about Iraq. That is shameful and despicable.

I have made my problems with McCain clear over and over again. I don't believe I can have a rational debate with someone who says incredibly stupid and untrue shit like "Obama is friends with known terrorists." That sounds like someone who only gets their news from Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel.

[SpoonMan999]

He told people the market in Baghdad was as safe as a market in America, and that you could just walk freely. He failed to mention his huge military escort. He lied to the American people in order to make them believe he was right about Iraq. That is shameful and despicable.

I have made my problems with McCain clear over and over again. I don't believe I can have a rational debate with someone who says incredibly stupid and untrue shit like "Obama is friends with known terrorists." That sounds like someone who only gets their news from Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel.

The problem is that the market may in fact be perfectly safe on a normal day. But you put a presidential nominee there and the possibility of someone going to that market just to take a shot at him is very high. As a matter of fact, it's something security forces in the states would have to consider as well. I see no lie, only you twisting this the way you want to.

Also, Obama is friends with someone implicated in the Pentagon attack. It's not bullshit, it's very true. I'll try to find an article on it, one not from Fox News.

[SpoonMan999]

Does anyone even know the issues or just like tossing out crap? Review the voting records, look at what these candidates side with. People are going to bash the candidate they dislike without any real footing. Like SpoonMan999, is someone that obviously is going to throw words around without much backing. I have no problem if you like McCain or Obama, or another candidate, just make sure you back up your stuff.

You backed yourself with nothing...and then accuse me of having no backing. I stated my opinions and you're stating your's as fact and trying to make me look foolish.

At least the money would be going to help the economy instead of putting together a country that can pay their own way. They are making enough money from oil, they can start funding their own country.

You need to spend money to make money.

Show me where his increased spending is going to stimulate the economy? Come on show me some backing.

What is so wrong with thinking about the environment? You can drill and be cautious of how you do it. Like the Republicans were doing a great job in control.

Clearly, you're illiterate. I said he is environmentally responsible which means he supports protecting the environment but he also sees the need to drill more. He is against drilling in the Arctic like most Republicans are pushing for. I was saying this is a good quality.

Yes, lets go over to Iraq and take over. Who attacked us again? Oh yeah, not Iraq. What involvement did Iraq have in 9/11? None. In fact, the majority of the hijackers were Saudis, a little odd we don't attack them instead.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The idea of Saddam supporting terrorism was there but was not a deciding factor on whether or not we were going in. You claimed to know the issues?

Lets see, we go over to their countries, and tell them they must run their country a certain way. What we might see as deplorable, what we do is seen as deplorable to them. It is their way of life, and we can't keep pushing our ways on others. That is what creates angry people in those countries. They follow a strict religious following.


You're right, turning control of the country over to the people and stopping the executions and mass murders was absolutely deplorable.

Also, since when do non-US citizens get to live by the US Constitution? Those prisoners are not citizens of our country and should be held by their own laws, which of course endorses torture and the murder of innocents.

McCain's buddies will be coming into the limelight. The life of both people will be coming out now, and I am sure we will hear the negatives more than the positives.

I doubt any of McCain's buddies will be screaming about how we deserved the 9/11 attacks, implicated in corporate scandals, or implicated in acts of terrorism.

[SpoonMan999]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0420chapmanapr20,0,2129659.column

When William F. Buckley Jr. died in February, one of the things widely praised, by liberals and others, was his stalwart insistence on moral hygiene. Even when his conservative movement was small and embattled, he rejected the temptation to join forces with anti-Semites, the John Birch Society and other extremists. Later, he disavowed longtime confederates Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran for the sin of bigotry.

Buckley knew the importance of choosing allies carefully. But some people who expect such care from conservatives don't practice it themselves.

Among many liberals, extremism in the defense of "social justice" is no vice. When the folk singer Pete Seeger got a medal from President Clinton, no one cared that he was a veteran apologist for Stalin and that he still regarded himself as a communist. That indifference betrayed a double standard that conscientious liberals should reject.

By that standard, Barack Obama is a liberal, but not a conscientious one. I don't much care if he declines to wear a flag pin; I can overlook his wife's limited capacity for patriotic pride; and I defended his relationship with his former pastor. But his comfortable association with an unrepentant former terrorist should induce queasiness in anyone who shares the humane values that Obama extols.



Steve Chapman Bio | E-mail | Recent columns

When the issue came up in Wednesday's Democratic debate, the Illinois senator tried to duck it. "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from," he said. He added that to suggest "knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense."

Obama went on, "I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements?"

This exercise in moral equivalence is unconvincing, if not dishonest. Would Obama be friendly with someone who actually bombed abortion clinics and defends that conduct? Not likely. But he is friendly with William Ayers, a leader of the radical Weather Underground, which in the 1970s carried out numerous bombings, including one inside the U.S. Capitol. (Though the last person who should object is Hillary Clinton, whose husband pardoned two Weather Underground members.)

Obama minimized his relationship by acknowledging only that he knows Ayers. But they have quite a bit more of a connection than that. He's appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers even gave money to one of his campaigns.

It's not as though Ayers and Dohrn have denied or repudiated their crimes. After emerging from years in hiding, they escaped federal prosecution because of government misconduct in gathering evidence, but they don't pretend they were innocent. In 2001, Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Dohrn has likewise rationalized the explosions, claiming that "our acts of resistance were tiny and symbolic." She even went to prison for refusing to testify about an armored-car robbery involving her confederates. That crime was not tiny or symbolic to the two police officers or the security guard who were shot to death in the process.

All this is public record, and Barack Obama would have to be in a coma not to know it. Yet he showed no qualms about consorting with Ayers and Dohrn.

It's hard to imagine he would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans. Obama's conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and b) haven't planted any bombs lately.

You can tell a lot about someone from his choice of friends. What this friendship reveals is that when it comes to practicing sound moral hygiene, Obama has work to do and no interest in doing it.


This is from the Chicago Tribune and written by someone who actually defended Obama previously.

[SpoonMan999]

No, he thinks he should apologize for his association with an unrepentent terrorist. Someone who planted bombs and supported men who shot down two police officers. There is a HUGE diference.

[MadsenOMC]

I live in Chicago and subscribe to the Chicago Tribune. I am well aware of Steve Chapman and his writing. He also wrote this about McCain.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6061828.column
chicagotribune.com

McCain finds his own radical friend

Steve Chapman

May 4, 2008

Can a presidential candidate justify a long and friendly relationship with someone who, back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology—and who has never shown remorse or admitted error? When the candidate in question is Barack Obama, John McCain says no. But when the candidate in question is John McCain, he's not so sure.

Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."

What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers—in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns—including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history—and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. . . . Kill the sons of bitches."

He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.

Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy—or celebrating his service to their common cause.

How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.

That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.

[MadsenOMC]

No, he thinks he should apologize for his association with an unrepentent terrorist. Someone who planted bombs and supported men who shot down two police officers. There is a HUGE diference.

To you of course there is a huge difference. You have to justify supporting McCain and ignore anything that makes your candidate look bad. Liddy is a convicted felon with no regrets about what he did and he advocated shooting federal agents. Like Chapman (a conservative, by the way) says, McCain is a hypocrite.

[SpoonMan999]

To you of course there is a huge difference. You have to justify supporting McCain and ignore anything that makes your candidate look bad. Liddy is a convicted felon with no regrets about what he did and he advocated shooting federal agents. Like Chapman (a conservative, by the way) says, McCain is a hypocrite.

All politicians tend to be hypocritical. And you're doing the exact same thing you say I'm doing...I don't see how you can't see this. As I've said I'm not at all happy with McCain being the nominee, but I listed the reasons I'd vote for him over Obama. All you've said are comments along the lines of "Nu-uh!"

[MadsenOMC]

All politicians tend to be hypocritical. And you're doing the exact same thing you say I'm doing...I don't see how you can't see this. As I've said I'm not at all happy with McCain being the nominee, but I listed the reasons I'd vote for him over Obama. All you've said are comments along the lines of "Nu-uh!"

Oh so now all politicians are hypocritical so it's OK for McCain to be one too. I see how it is. Like I said, here and in others threads I have repeatedly stated my reasons for being against McCain. It wouldn't be hard to find them. If you want me to repeat them again, though, I will.

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121528

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120714

[SpoonMan999]

Oh so now all politicians are hypocritical so it's OK for McCain to be one too. I see how it is. Like I said, here and in others threads I have repeatedly stated my reasons for being against McCain. It wouldn't be hard to find them. If you want me to repeat them again, though, I will.

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121528

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120714

I never said it was ok, just that it's a fact. You need to stop jumping on everything little thing I say and try to blow it out of proportion, you're acting like the media. Again, I'm not a huge fan of McCain, politcally at least I think he's an awesome person from what I've seen. I don't understand why people need to act like I'm insulting their mother because I think Obama isn't the saint everyone makes him out to be.

[MadsenOMC]

I do not think Obama is a saint. That is just silly. This idea that McCain is an "awesome person" is ludicrous and untrue. He has done an effective job of peddling that image though, thanks in part to the media, which is in love with him.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/wolcott200807

[Cop No. 633]

What I find funny about Ayers is the fact that he's now a college professor at the University of Chicago. If he's such a terrorist, why the hell would an institution of education have him teaching in our country?

Don't you think our government would have kept him in jail if he was so dangerous to society?

You have to remember the 60's were a radical time. The government was not good for its people. Hell, do you even know why the Black Panther movement was started? Cops used to literally shake down, arrrest and even kill black people if they barely gave a cop the wrong look. Hell, the Chicago Police shot Fred Hampton in his bed while he slept. You tell me who was the terrorist. The police system was incredibly racist and caused more unnecessary deaths in that time than the Weather Underground or any militant group in the U.S. So please, don't go throwing around the word terrorist without thinking about who was a "terrorist" back in those days.

Left leaning people were sick of the fascist tactics of the government in the 60's so they reacted in the same fashion, giving them a taste of their own medicine. Do I need to remind you that only 5 years prior to the Weather Underground, cops were hosing down people who were protesting racism and segregation? Who was the terrorist then?

I'm not saying William Ayers was a saint. I'm just pointing out the fact that in those times, left leaning people were dealing with an incredibly aggressive government who was ten times as deplorable and damaging. I don't think I have to bring up Vietnam into this since it was big factor why groups became active. Both sides resorted to drastic measures that I hope we will never have to come to today. The truth is, you can't simply say Ayers was a terrorist without thinking about your definition of terrorism and seeing that both sides fit the bill.

[SpoonMan999]

I do not think Obama is a saint. That is just silly. This idea that McCain is an "awesome person" is ludicrous and untrue. He has done an effective job of peddling that image though, thanks in part to the media, which is in love with him.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/wolcott200807

You keep saying the media is in love with him but whenever he's mentioned on CNN they mention his policies in a negative context while promoting Obama's as forward thinking and intelligent. And please, don't ever use Vanity Fair in a political discussion if you want me to take you seriously. I've watched him give interviews on Conan and The Daily Show that had me laughing and really liking McCain as a person.

Also, I read the threads you linked and the only point I see you making is the one trying to be made in this thread, "He's like Bush". A point which you only support by using stance on what are pretty much cookie cutter Republican views...so, a pretty poor argument in my book. You just sound like someone who always votes Democrat no matter what.

[SpoonMan999]

What I find funny about Ayers is the fact that he's now a college professor at the University of Chicago. If he's such a terrorist, why the hell would an institution of education have him teaching in our country?

Don't you think our government would have kept him in jail if he was so dangerous to society?

You have to remember the 60's were a radical time. The government was not good for its people. Hell, do you even know why the Black Panther movement was started? Cops used to literally shake down, arrrest and even kill black people if they barely gave a cop the wrong look. Hell, the Chicago Police shot Fred Hampton in his bed while he slept. You tell me who was the terrorist. The police system was incredibly racist and caused more unnecessary deaths in that time than the Weather Underground or any militant group in the U.S. So please, don't go throwing around the word terrorist without thinking about who was a "terrorist" back in those days.

Left leaning people were sick of the fascist tactics of the government in the 60's so they reacted in the same fashion, giving them a taste of their own medicine. Do I need to remind you that only 5 years prior to the Weather Underground, cops were hosing down people who were protesting racism and segregation? Who was the terrorist then?

I'm not saying William Ayers was a saint. I'm just pointing out the fact that in those times, left leaning people were dealing with an incredibly aggressive government who was ten times as deplorable and damaging. I don't think I have to bring up Vietnam into this since it was big factor why groups became active. Both sides resorted to drastic measures that I hope we will never have to come to today. The truth is, you can't simply say Ayers was a terrorist without thinking about your definition of terrorism and seeing that both sides fit the bill.

Again, people arguing about things I didn't say. I never mentioned the police of that era. I never mentioned the racism. I didn't mention anything but a man who planted bombs with the intent of killing people with them, and plenty of people were killed the by the bombs and the organization planted. That counts as terrorism in my book, if you don't think someone bombing innocent people to get their way in the world isn't terrorism then I'm simply baffled by your logic.

Oh, and as I recall a good chunk of the people supporting segragation and these crimes were left wingers. So don't give me this crap that it was the left that pulled us out of this.

[MadsenOMC]

You keep saying the media is in love with him but whenever he's mentioned on CNN they mention his policies in a negative context while promoting Obama's as forward thinking and intelligent. And please, don't ever use Vanity Fair in a political discussion if you want me to take you seriously. I've watched him give interviews on Conan and The Daily Show that had me laughing and really liking McCain as a person.

Total and complete nonsense. I watch CNN every day and they certainly do not rave about Obama's policies while deriding McCain's. Don't even start the liberal media crap. And you expect me to take you seriously? Try again.

So a five minute interview tells you McCain is a great guy? Really?

Also, I read the threads you linked and the only point I see you making is the one trying to be made in this thread, "He's like Bush". A point which you only support by using stance on what are pretty much cookie cutter Republican views...so, a pretty poor argument in my book. You just sound like someone who always votes Democrat no matter what.

If that's all you read, you can't read. It's as simple as that. Speaking of cookie cutter Republican views, that sums you up perfectly. You sound like someone who votes Republican no matter what to me.

[Homyrrh]

First, I apologize for being a bit off to Madsen; I reacted poorly.

In any case, Spoon has exaggerated an otherwise very legitimate observation. This is politics. No matter what justification one may have for voting for candidate B, supporters of candidate A will say the reasons for supporting A are worthless.

I am convicted McCain is a better candidate than Obama in several significant ways, but even if I provide substantial reasoning, the subjectiveness of the opposition is bound to conclude in a refutation of that substatiation regardless.

In all, there's currently nothing you can tell me to persuade me that Senator Barack Obama is the best available candidate for the US presidency. However, I can't say that just because I'm "loud and clear" means I'm factually correct.

[SpoonMan999]

Total and complete nonsense. I watch CNN every day and they certainly do not rave about Obama's policies while deriding McCain's. Don't even start the liberal media crap. And you expect me to take you seriously? Try again.

So a five minute interview tells you McCain is a great guy? Really?



If that's all you read, you can't read. It's as simple as that. Speaking of cookie cutter Republican views, that sums you up perfectly. You sound like someone who votes Republican no matter what to me.

I said CNN writers tend to speak more positively of him, can nobody in this forum read? And I didn't say the media is liberal, though most networks tend to be more liberal than conservative, in my opinion at least.

The interviews just made me see him as a good humored fun person. That's all...you really need to get off of your high horse and try speaking to people instead of down to them.

And please, enlighten me on other points you made because you seem to just be spewing the same thing over and over, "He's like Bush and everything you say is wrong." Also, give me a reason. Don't just say, "His economic plan is stupid." Please, treat me with the respect I'm trying to treat you with.

You make the point of me seeing things one way because I support McCain, do you not concede that you view them diferently because you support Obama?

[Cop No. 633]

Again, people arguing about things I didn't say. I never mentioned the police of that era. I never mentioned the racism. I didn't mention anything but a man who planted bombs with the intent of killing people with them, and plenty of people were killed the by the bombs and the organization planted. That counts as terrorism in my book, if you don't think someone bombing innocent people to get their way in the world isn't terrorism then I'm simply baffled by your logic.

Oh, and as I recall a good chunk of the people supporting segragation and these crimes were left wingers. So don't give me this crap that it was the left that pulled us out of this.

I'm just bringing up the fact that you're saying this man is a terrorist when I'm also pointing out the fact that our government also performed terrorism as well. Vietnam much like the war in Iraq was another unnecessary battle fought simply because wanted to have control of the country's exports since France backed off years before. There was no "patriotic" or "perfect" reason for going in much like Iraq, where it's the same yet again: trying to have control over another country for profit. The reason why I brought it up was that you're saying this man is a terrorist but then the government was doing worse things, so how could his actions be deplorable but when an actual institution of government does worse things, it's not even on your radar? I am baffled by your logic. I never defended Ayers' actions. What he did was wrong, I never said it wasn't. What I did was show you the context of his actions. Why did I do that? Because you have given me the impression that you don't question how our government acts outside of social programs which actually help people as opposed to war which has put our country in debt and has killed thousands of lives.

As for you saying "left leaning" people were pro-segregation you are either being incredibly naive or just being facetious. No real left leaning individual would ever support that. Saying you're "left wing" and actually being one are two completely different things. That's like saying Bush is a Republican. He's a fraud and a liar, and I know Republicans who down right find the man embarrassing. The only real Republican I saw on the debates early this year was Ron Paul and he was the most well spoken man despite his incredibly radical ideas of dismantling the government programs, which I don't agree with at all before you go and say that I'm a Ron Paul fanatic.

[SpoonMan999]

I'm just bringing up the fact that you're saying this man is a terrorist when I'm also pointing out the fact that our government also performed terrorism as well. Vietnam much like the war in Iraq was another unnecessary battle fought simply because wanted to have control of the country's exports since France backed off years before. There was no "patriotic" or "perfect" reason for going in much like Iraq, where it's the same yet again: trying to have control over another country for profit. The reason why I brought it up was that you're saying this man is a terrorist but then the government was doing worse things, so how could his actions be deplorable but when an actual institution of government does worse things, it's not even on your radar? I am baffled by your logic. I never defended Ayers' actions. What he did was wrong, I never said it wasn't. What I did was show you the context of his actions. Why did I do that? Because you haven't given me the impression that you question how our government acts outside of social programs which actually help people as opposed to war which has put our country in debt and has killed thousands of lives.

As for you saying "left leaning" people were pro-segregation you are either being incredibly naive or just being facetious. No real left leaning individual would ever support that. Saying you're "left wing" and actually being one are two completely different things. That's like saying Bush is a Republican. He's a fraud and a liar, and I know Republicans who down right find the man embarrassing. The only real Republican I saw on the debates early this year was Ron Paul and he was the most well spoken man despite his incredibly radical ideas of dismantling the government programs, which I don't agree with at all before you go and say that I'm a Ron Paul fanatic.

My point was you tried to make a point that was completely irelevant to the point I was making. I wasn't comparing him to anything I was pointing out HIS actions. We're not here debating the actions of the government in the 60's we're talking about one man's actions and his relationship with the man who wants to be our president.

Also, I don't approve of a lot of the things Bush does and I am embarassed to be registered as a Republican right now.

So, no left wingers are racist? And none of them want infringe upon anyone's rights? That's what you're saying yes?

[Homyrrh]

Between this thread and the detainee thread concurrently being discussed, I've heard more insults on others' intelligence, specifically regarding their level of reading comprehension, than should be tolerable.

To refute someone is one thing, and while insulting their reading ability is childish, more importantly is is entirely illogical. If someone can type a sentence, like this one that is relatively well punctuated considering the context of cyberspace, that person just may be able to...read.

[SpoonMan999]

Between this thread and the detainee thread concurrently being discussed, I've heard more insults on others' intelligence, specifically regarding their level of reading comprehension, than should be tolerable.

To refute someone is one thing, and while insulting their reading ability is childish, more importantly is is entirely illogical. If someone can type a sentence, like this one that is relatively well punctuated considering the context of cyberspace, that person just may be able to...read.

I did do it once and I apologize for it. It's just infuriating when someone criticizes you for doing exactly what they're doing.

[shoe1985]

You backed yourself with nothing...and then accuse me of having no backing. I stated my opinions and you're stating your's as fact and trying to make me look foolish.

Of course they are your opinions, I am going by what both candidates have said they will do. So, it is fact, unless they flip flop.


Show me where his increased spending is going to stimulate the economy? Come on show me some backing.

His ideas will create jobs, helping people make money, so they can spend it on buying products, increasing the GDP by companies producing more items. It is like these pet projects that congress creates, they may seem stupid, but they do create jobs, and these people do spend money.

Clearly, you're illiterate. I said he is environmentally responsible which means he supports protecting the environment but he also sees the need to drill more. He is against drilling in the Arctic like most Republicans are pushing for. I was saying this is a good quality.

Illiterate? McCain and Bush are trying to get Congress to drill now. Before he was all against the idea, saying how bad it would be. Now, thanks in part of the election, he is all for it because Americans will think he is trying to help them.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The idea of Saddam supporting terrorism was there but was not a deciding factor on whether or not we were going in. You claimed to know the issues?

Saddam came out and said he felt bad for the American people, but not the leaders of country. He said the leaders deserved this, but not the American people. I am not sure I can find proof, I was watching a program that he was on, he was discussing the attack. The deciding factor was "that they had WMD," guess we know how that turned out. "As the soldiers keep looking."

You're right, turning control of the country over to the people and stopping the executions and mass murders was absolutely deplorable.

What else can be said? More countries should of stepped in, but that is a whole other issue.

Also, since when do non-US citizens get to live by the US Constitution? Those prisoners are not citizens of our country and should be held by their own laws, which of course endorses torture and the murder of innocents.

Ask George W. for an answer to this, and those in Congress at the time. If you want me to give an answer, well we are trying to be humane, torture is something I am sure we do, but considering the publicity for this, we won't do it. We need to look good.

I doubt any of McCain's buddies will be screaming about how we deserved the 9/11 attacks, implicated in corporate scandals, or implicated in acts of terrorism.

9/11 was a wakeup call. Did we deserve 9/11? No, why should innocent people die over political nonsense? Why did it have to go this far?

We can say the Arabs and Saudis were jealous of us, like many have said, but the real problem was that we felt we could control them. How would you like to have someone come into your country, your home, and say this is how things will work? You would laugh in their faces. Too bad they have advanced weapons, and many more men then you do.

I don't think you are wrong SpoonMan999 in your beliefs. I have mine, you have yours. I respond with what the candidates have said, and plan to do. I have read a lot about both candidates, and both could do really well. Both could also fail badly. I said what I feel this country needs, a strong leader. I believe Obama is the stronger leader, my opinion. I am a Democrat, but would vote Republican if I felt the other person was the better candidate, I don't feel that way right now.

[shoe1985]

First, I apologize for being a bit off to Madsen; I reacted poorly.

In any case, Spoon has exaggerated an otherwise very legitimate observation. This is politics. No matter what justification one may have for voting for candidate B, supporters of candidate A will say the reasons for supporting A are worthless.

I am convicted McCain is a better candidate than Obama in several significant ways, but even if I provide substantial reasoning, the subjectiveness of the opposition is bound to conclude in a refutation of that substatiation regardless.

In all, there's currently nothing you can tell me to persuade me that Senator Barack Obama is the best available candidate for the US presidency. However, I can't say that just because I'm "loud and clear" means I'm factually correct.

In your second paragraph, I agree 100%. We all have different situations, and we will vote for the person that fits us best. So, maybe McCain offers you and Spoon something, but for some of us, Obama offers us something we would rather. That is what is so great about this country. We are allowed to voice our opinions. I think we all need to remember that just because Obama offers someone something, he might be taking something away from someone else, same with John McCain.

Look at George Bush, the only real people who have done well under his administration would be the super rich, not even the rich people are doing well. It isn't just his fault, but in history it will blame him.

[Homyrrh]

I'd be wary, soup, of what Saddam says, especially when *literally* holed up. Otherwise a very respectable post.

[SpoonMan999]

His ideas will create jobs, helping people make money, so they can spend it on buying products, increasing the GDP by companies producing more items. It is like these pet projects that congress creates, they may seem stupid, but they do create jobs, and these people do spend money.

you still haven't told me HOW he is going to do this.

Illiterate?

I apologized for the illiterate comment above. I couldn't remember who I made it toward so now I can say I'm sorry to you personally. I apologize, again I was just a little irritated and not even toward you.

McCain and Bush are trying to get Congress to drill now. Before he was all against the idea, saying how bad it would be. Now, thanks in part of the election, he is all for it because Americans will think he is trying to help them

I was talking about your response acting like I was upset over his view on protecting the environment, when in fact I'm glad to see a little environmental responsibility in a Republican. Also, he was again drilling in the Arctic and places of great natural beauty, not drilling period. He understands if we are going to get off of our oil addiction we need to find an alternative, but for the time being we do need the oil and the current means of acquiring it are inadequate.

Saddam came out and said he felt bad for the American people, but not the leaders of country. He said the leaders deserved this, but not the American people. I am not sure I can find proof, I was watching a program that he was on, he was discussing the attack. The deciding factor was "that they had WMD," guess we know how that turned out. "As the soldiers keep looking."

You should read Scott McClellan's book, it describes how Saddam told his generals he had WMDs to scare people. We ended up acting upon a scare tactic that we thought was true, not our fault he spread the wrong rumor.

Ask George W. for an answer to this, and those in Congress at the time. If you want me to give an answer, well we are trying to be humane, torture is something I am sure we do, but considering the publicity for this, we won't do it. We need to look good.

I'm just making the point that being held without trial is a hell of a lot nicer than torturing them to death.

We can say the Arabs and Saudis were jealous of us, like many have said, but the real problem was that we felt we could control them. How would you like to have someone come into your country, your home, and say this is how things will work? You would laugh in their faces. Too bad they have advanced weapons, and many more men then you do.

If I were living under the rule of someone like Saddam and these people were offering something like Democracy...I'd probably the kiss the bastards.

[SpoonMan999]

I'd be wary, soup, of what Saddam says, especially when *literally* holed up. Otherwise a very respectable post.

Did I miss something?

[MadsenOMC]

I said CNN writers tend to speak more positively of him, can nobody in this forum read? And I didn't say the media is liberal, though most networks tend to be more liberal than conservative, in my opinion at least.

This is what you said:

"You keep saying the media is in love with him but whenever he's mentioned on CNN they mention his policies in a negative context while promoting Obama's as forward thinking and intelligent."

Nothing about CNN writers there.

The interviews just made me see him as a good humored fun person. That's all...you really need to get off of your high horse and try speaking to people instead of down to them.

And please, enlighten me on other points you made because you seem to just be spewing the same thing over and over, "He's like Bush and everything you say is wrong." Also, give me a reason. Don't just say, "His economic plan is stupid." Please, treat me with the respect I'm trying to treat you with.

You make the point of me seeing things one way because I support McCain, do you not concede that you view them diferently because you support Obama?

In both of those threads I linked to, I go into detail numerous times concerning my problems with McCain. Long posts, often with links. I never said, "His economic plan is stupid." They are right there for you. You just have to go through the threads and read them. I don't think you have, or you'd see there's much more to my posts than "McCain is just like Bush and he's bad."

[SpoonMan999]

This is what you said:

"You keep saying the media is in love with him but whenever he's mentioned on CNN they mention his policies in a negative context while promoting Obama's as forward thinking and intelligent."

Nothing about CNN writers there.



In both of those threads I linked to, I go into detail numerous times concerning my problems with McCain. Long posts, often with links. I never said, "His economic plan is stupid." They are right there for you. You just have to go through the threads and read them. I don't think you have, or you'd see there's much more to my posts than "McCain is just like Bush and he's bad."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and read your posts a third time, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong but I think once again you're misinterpreting me.

[MadsenOMC]

If I misunderstood you, I apologize and please, correct my mistake. But in your initial reference to CNN you never said writers. You just said CNN, which I took as a reference to the network in general.

[SpoonMan999]

If I misunderstood you, I apologize and please, correct my mistake. But in your initial reference to CNN you never said writers. You just said CNN, which I took as a reference to the network in general.

Well, I refered to how the articles were written and thus meant the writers were shining him in this light. Now, the network could stop this but they don't which does give me the impression that the people running the company probably agree with their writer's views but that wasn't the point I was making.

Also, my internet has been down for some time so I'm just now getting caught up on a number of threads on more than one forum, so if I did miss something that may be why.

[QUENTIN]

Hmm. My ideology, despite any previous lack of clarity on my part, essentially mirrors that of General Clark's quote. While war mongering is despicable, an unnecessary evil that transcends any apparent morality, to denounce war as something that can be avoided is "ignorant and naive". While pacifism is a principle I openly consider as ideal, I feel I'm being beyond political, realistic actually, in saying war is a fact of global diplomacy.

And I figure your remarks about my disregard for human life were either a misunderstanding or a tool for structuring a point.

And both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the msot unfortunate of necessary evils; I believe this is another discussion.



War is only a "fact" of global diplomacy so long as we choose to answer all of our diplomatic problems with "Let's kill a whole lot of them, it's good for the economy and shows we're strong." War is never a necessity, always a choice and it comes from choosing to put less important things (territory, resources, standing in the world stage) above the most important thing (human life). Every war throughout history is thoroughly avoidable, and most wars in modern history have resulted from neither side even trying to avoid the most terrible of outcomes. After practically the entire world tried to commit suicide twice in the first half of the twentieth century, you'd think we would have learned our lesson, considered the immense suffering and destruction, and found a way to ensure nothing like it would ever happen again. Instead, we focused on what the power structure saw as the benefits of WWI and WWII (hegemony, economic boom, advancements in technology that could mass murder people more expediently and easily) and handed control of foreign policy over to the Military-Industrial Complex who can maximize profits by maintaining perpetual war, a state we've found ourselves in ever since. The MI-C is the only structure for which war is a necessity, it makes the supremely wealthy wealthier and helps maintain the status quo. War is not beneficial to 99+% of the world population and involves mass immorality and disregard for life, there really is no legitimate argument for it.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a big subject, perhaps OT in this thread, but I brought it up because believing it was necessary is the absolute height of ignorance and naivete and the kind of thinking that keeps the American people behind nearly every war we even consider entering. I'm sure your middle school history teacher told you it was necessary, you may have even read it in a book but that doesn't make it so. It's the equivalent of believing Iraq had WMDs when we invaded or George Washington never told a lie, a national myth perpetrated by the government that can only continue in a bubble devoid of scrutiny or facts. It is easily proven to be wholly unnecessary and morally reprehensible. I worked as a research assistant to Peter Kuznick, the founder and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute and so I've had access to and poured over literally thousands of contemporary documents, journal entries, transcripts, facts and figures relating to the decision to drop the bombs and I can tell you there was doubt in no one's mind at the time that it was absolutely not necessary and played no role in ending WWII.

I'm going to assume your belief, like that of the majority of American citizens who to this day think the bombings were a good idea, is based on a quote by Secretary of War Henry Stimson justifying the use of atomic weapons that said winning the war in Japan would require an invasion in which 200,000 American lives would be lost, a figure he inflated to half a million a month after the war was over. The facts reveal that Stimson knew and advised Truman, as did the ENTIRE Joint Chiefs of Staff including Admiral William Leahy, General George C. Marshall, Admiral Ernest King, General Hap Arnold, General Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, and all of Truman's other military advisors that the Japanese had already lost the war, were begging to surrender, and all we needed to do was agree at any time to their sole condition for surrender and the war would be over in an instant. All of these individuals, and the entirety of Truman's cabinet with one exception strongly and officially advised Truman against dropping the atomic bomb, all of the experts of the day knew it would serve no purpose and do no good.

So why did he drop it? The one member of Truman's cabinet who was for the use of the bomb was the man who suggested it, Secretary of State Jimmy Byrnes, Truman's only friend in the Senate and long-time personal advisor, was a staunch hardline anti-Soviet and racist and he wanted to use the bomb not to stop the already defeated Japanese, but to scare the Russians. He wrote as much in his personal diary in July of 1945. He thought the "annihilation" of Japanese citizens would show the Soviet Union that the U.S. was more ruthless and powerful than they were and would be beneficial in establishing Global supremacy in the aftermath of the war. In other words, it was purely for political gain, not to save lives or end the war.

The Japanese had been suing for peace for 10 months by the time we dropped the bombs. They were sending diplomats literally daily to the USSR, asking them to mediate the surrender terms with the U.S. and even had high-ranking officials directly contact Joseph Grew the former Ambassador to Japan and deliver the message that they wanted to surrender immediately. We knew this anyway because we had been intercepting and decoding Japanese communiqués and they provided the same information. When Truman met with Stalin and Churchill at Yalta, Stalin told Truman directly that the Japanese were ready and willing to surrender, they had only one condition: that Emperor Hirohito not be tried as a war criminal. Hirohito was considered a living God to the Japanese people, treating him as human and executing him has no equivalent to the American people, but the closest you can come would be asking us to resurrect and re-crucify Christ after admonishing him. Truman rejected this single term, demanded unconditional surrender and was willing to lose many more American lives and kill hundreds of thousands more Japanese lives to acquire this. Stalin agreed to enter the war in the pacific at Yalta and this decision is what actually ended WWII. The Russian Army was so immense and powerful, the Japanese knew that literally the day they entered the war, Japanese surrender would be immediate. Ambassador Sato said "If at any time the U.S.S.R. enters the war, Japanese despair and despondency will reign and defeat will be inevitable". Even Emperor Hirohito admitted that the Russians would deal a swift "death blow to the Empire." At the meeting in Potsdam, Stalin assured Truman he was preparing his Army to enter the war, which the Japanese knew as they were preparing for unconditional surrender, and Truman told him it wouldn't be necessary. He decides letting the tenuous allies of the USSR help us was not worth it in the balance of power to follow, so he would just bomb the hell out of a few cities and secure surrender in a far more violent manner.

And do you know maybe the worst part of it all? That after 10 months of trying to sue for peace, holding out for only one condition in the surrender terms, hoping the USSR would provide them enough small leverage to not have their God put on trial and finally, despondently and utterly defeated, agreeing to surrender unconditionally when they saw no leverage or aid was coming, the U.S. didn't even put Hirohito on trial for war crimes. In other words, the war could have been ended 10 months earlier and the outcome would have been exactly the same, the only difference being that several hundred thousand more people would be alive and no country would have used the most vile, reprehensible, and destructive force known on Earth. It was completely pointless and benefited no one. But that's what Truman wanted, he wanted to use them as a sign of strength the scare the Russians and show he meant business, to begin with a seeming upperhand in the coming Cold War that resulted in ridiculous effort and money going into neverending stockpiles of enough weapons to destroy the entire world 50 times over. If you're going to defend THAT as a good, admirable, necessary reason then you can't have an ounce of morality or yes, regard for human life.

I'll leave the truncated history lesson with a few quotes from military experts of the time that should help show I'm not full of shit and the total lack of necessity of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings is in no legitimate dispute. What I've cited is well-documented and the opinions of everyone (the scientists who invented the bomb all advised against its use as well) but Jimmy Byrnes and Harry Truman were unanimously opposed to the decision for the reasons I gave.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

"We adopted the ethical standards of barbarians in the dark ages. It was of no material value to the war or the defeat of the Japanese. We killed as many women and children as possible. This is on our hands forever" - Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." -Admiral Chester Nimitz, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at the time

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." -General Dwight D. Eisenhower, head of US Army at the time

"When we knew we didn't need to do it, and that it may end humanity as we know it, we used it merely as an experiment on atomic bombs." -Brigadier General Carter Clark, the chief military intelligence officer in charge of intercepting Japanese communications for U.S. officials

I can go more in-depth into this if you want to talk about it more, but while it's directly off-topic, it does get to the heart of what this discussion is about. We only think war is necessary when we believe those who lead us to war, the facts invariably show that the most extreme and atrocious of acts a country can engage in is never its only or best option. It isn't unrealistic to believe peace is always possible, it just involves making the right decision instead of the wrong one. It also shows how ironic or hypocritical it is of you to claim that those who renounce and oppose all war are ignorant and naive when it is your justifications for war that are totally ignorant and naive.

[The Heart Collector]

-Obama's "let's stop the war and bring down the deficit by spending three times what we are in Iraq" economic plan makes no sense. How are you going to get us out of debt by spending more money?

According to The Wall Street Journal, Obama's economic plans are sound, pay for themselves, and are fiscally responsible. They gave him an A-.

According to The Wall Street Journal, McCain's economic plans are dumb, fiscally irresponsible, and positively idiotic. They gave him a D+.

[SpoonMan999]

In both of those threads I linked to, I go into detail numerous times concerning my problems with McCain. Long posts, often with links. I never said, "His economic plan is stupid." They are right there for you. You just have to go through the threads and read them. I don't think you have, or you'd see there's much more to my posts than "McCain is just like Bush and he's bad."

Ok, I finished reading the first thread and you conveyed two general points:
1. He's too much like Bush.
2. He associates with lobbyists.

And really on both of these points you were expressing that they were going to be issues for McCain the only one expressed as a reason not to vote for him was the first. I will continue to read the second thread now.

[SpoonMan999]

According to The Wall Street Journal, Obama's economic plans are sound, pay for themselves, and are fiscally responsible. They gave him an A-.

According to The Wall Street Journal, McCain's economic plans are dumb, fiscally irresponsible, and positively idiotic. They gave him a D+.

Again, nobody is telling me HOW they are going to work, just that they will.

[SpoonMan999]

In both of those threads I linked to, I go into detail numerous times concerning my problems with McCain. Long posts, often with links. I never said, "His economic plan is stupid." They are right there for you. You just have to go through the threads and read them. I don't think you have, or you'd see there's much more to my posts than "McCain is just like Bush and he's bad."

Ok, finished reading the second and once again the only deterrent you provided was the Bush similarities. And you really haven't provided any specifics on what about these similarities you oppose you just say you oppose it.

[QUENTIN]

As for Bill Ayers being a "terrorist", it absolutely matters what the Government he was fighting was doing. Ayers was REACTING to the actions of COINTELPRO, the FBI, CIA, and police who were illegallly acting as terrorists to destroy the anti-war, anti-segregation, human rights movement. The Weather Underground and the Black Panther party were founded as law-abiding organizations that simply demanded the constitutional rights they were being denied by unlawful cops and government agents. They were a small, welll-armed militia fighting tyranny and defending the constitution, by definition freedom fighters. If you're going to use the term terrorist as loosely and J. Edgar Hooverly as that, then many of the founding fathers were terrorists and the colonists were terrorists and many in the civil rights and student activism movements were terrorists. The U.S. Congress actually found the actions of COINTELPRO, the secret government organization most directly related to breaking up the SDS, SNCC, Black Panther Party, and Weather Underground so heinous and blatantly illegal as to label THEM "terrorists" and what they did was surely terrorism. Look into it. To say that it doesn't matter what they government they were fighting was doing is asinine. If a small group of German citizens banded together to sneak into a bunker and assassinate Hitler, would you say they were terrorists and it doesn't matter who their target was? The Weather Underground became violent in response to the wanton violence perpetrated on them by the Government that they had no recourse to settle because when the cops are the criminals and they start riots in which men, women, and children exercising their rights are brutally beaten, who do you turn to?

I don't think Ayers has any influence on Obama, but even if he did, the notion that he is a "terrorist" because he was part of The Weather Underground is ridiculous. He also wasn't involved in the armored car heist, his targets were statues and symbols, not people.

[SpoonMan999]

I can go more in-depth into this if you want to talk about it more, but while it's directly off-topic, it does get to the heart of what this discussion is about. We only think war is necessary when we believe those who lead us to war, the facts invariably show that the most extreme and atrocious of acts a country can engage in is never its only or best option. It isn't unrealistic to believe peace is always possible, it just involves making the right decision instead of the wrong one. It also shows how ironic or hypocritical it is of you to claim that those who renounce and oppose all war are ignorant and naive when it is your justifications for war that are totally ignorant and naive.

So, stop Hitler wasn't something we had to do? By your logic we should have just laid down and taken it? Just because you think the world can just get along doesn't mean the Hitler's and Lenin's of the world would agree after a nice chat. Fighting the Nazis was completely justified and necessary.

[The Heart Collector]

McCain's economic plan, like most conservative economic plans post the great Satan (Ronald Reagan), are a bunch of supply side economics nonsense. Supply side economics, trickle down economics, etc, are nonsense. They have been proven to be essentially nonsense over the past 30 years or so. Their ridiculously positive predictions never actually happened. These plans, i.e. giving tax cuts to the rich to revitalize the economy and hopefully the money trickles down to the middle class and the poor and everyone has money and then revenue balances out doesn't actually happen. John McCain isn't actually planning on decreasing government expenses substantially, especially since he's fine with continuing the war in Iraq and increasing the size of the military, etc. So he's not going to actually reduce government spending dramatically, but he's not going to increase government revenue... So what exactly is that going to achieve? More debt. The middle class isn't some phenomenon that magically occurs out of nowhere; it is formed, by government policy, by welfare, by tax reform, etc. Conservatives have been chipping away at it for years, and McCain is happy to continue with this.


Essentially McCain's economic policies are all fundamentally terrible because he is adamant on continuing the "tax cuts to the rich stimulates the economy and makes everyone richer" philosophy that is just patently untrue. Since that is his philosophy, all his economic plans will, by default, be awful.

[SpoonMan999]

McCain's economic plan, like most conservative economic plans post the great Satan (Ronald Reagan), are a bunch of supply side economics nonsense. Supply side economics, trickle down economics, etc, are nonsense. They have been proven to be essentially nonsense over the past 30 years or so. Their ridiculously positive predictions never actually happened. These plans, i.e. giving tax cuts to the rich to revitalize the economy and hopefully the money trickles down to the middle class and the poor and everyone has money and then revenue balances out doesn't actually happen. John McCain isn't actually planning on decreasing government expenses substantially, especially since he's fine with continuing the war in Iraq and increasing the size of the military, etc. So he's not going to actually reduce government spending dramatically, but he's not going to increase government revenue... So what exactly is that going to achieve? More debt. The middle class isn't some phenomenon that magically occurs out of nowhere; it is formed, by government policy, by welfare, by tax reform, etc. Conservatives have been chipping away at it for years, and McCain is happy to continue with this.


Essentially McCain's economic policies are all fundamentally terrible because he is adamant on continuing the "tax cuts to the rich stimulates the economy and makes everyone richer" philosophy that is just patently untrue. Since that is his philosophy, all his economic plans will, by default, be awful.

Again you're not answering my question. I'm asking about Obama, not McCain.

[SpoonMan999]

As for Bill Ayers being a "terrorist", it absolutely matters what the Government he was fighting was doing. Ayers was REACTING to the actions of COINTELPRO, the FBI, CIA, and police who were illegallly acting as terrorists to destroy the anti-war, anti-segregation, human rights movement. The Weather Underground and the Black Panther party were founded as law-abiding organizations that simply demanded the constitutional rights they were being denied by unlawful cops and government agents. They were a small, welll-armed militia fighting tyranny and defending the constitution, by definition freedom fighters. If you're going to use the term terrorist as loosely and J. Edgar Hooverly as that, then many of the founding fathers were terrorists and the colonists were terrorists and many in the civil rights and student activism movements were terrorists. The U.S. Congress actually found the actions of COINTELPRO, the secret government organization most directly related to breaking up the SDS, SNCC, Black Panther Party, and Weather Underground so heinous and blatantly illegal as to label THEM "terrorists" and what they did was surely terrorism. Look into it. To say that it doesn't matter what they government they were fighting was doing is asinine. If a small group of German citizens banded together to sneak into a bunker and assassinate Hitler, would you say they were terrorists and it doesn't matter who their target was? The Weather Underground became violent in response to the wanton violence perpetrated on them by the Government that they had no recourse to settle because when the cops are the criminals and they start riots in which men, women, and children exercising their rights are brutally beaten, who do you turn to?

I don't think Ayers has any influence on Obama, but even if he did, the notion that he is a "terrorist" because he was part of The Weather Underground is ridiculous. He also wasn't involved in the armored car heist, his targets were statues and symbols, not people.

I didn't say it didn't matter, I said the government at the time was irelevant to my point. Just because you place it in context is doesn't make killing innocent people jusitified. Comparing Ayer's actions to our country's founders is just the worst thing you could do. Just because it was done with good intentions does not make it right...the ends do no always justify the means.

[SpoonMan999]

Ayers never had anything to do with killing innocent people is the point. The terrorist organizations he was fighting were far from innocent and the only targets he ever bombed were statues and government buildings that resulted in no casualties. He was part of a small, well-armed militia opposed to tyranny, there's nothing wrong with that and his movement in general did a lot of good and would have done much more if not for all the illegal interference.

No casualties? Where did you read this? Hell, even several of the bombers were killed by some of the explosions. And in the article I posted earlier members of his group shot and killed two police officers while they were robbing an armored car...is that part of the good that the group did?

[MadsenOMC]

Ok, finished reading the second and once again the only deterrent you provided was the Bush similarities. And you really haven't provided any specifics on what about these similarities you oppose you just say you oppose it.

I'll try to be civil.

In this thread and others, I have gone into more detail about why McCain is a bad choice than you have about why he is a good choice. That is a simple fact.

All I got from you:

We're safer with McCain.
McCain's economic policies are better.
Obama associates with terrorists and crazy preachers.

If you don't like or agree with my reasons, that is fine, but I have supplied more of them than you have.

[QUENTIN]

I didn't say it didn't matter, I said the government at the time was irelevant to my point. Just because you place it in context is doesn't make killing innocent people jusitified. Comparing Ayer's actions to our country's founders is just the worst thing you could do. Just because it was done with good intentions does not make it right...the ends do no always justify the means.

Ayers never had anything to do with killing innocent people is the point. The terrorist organizations he was fighting were far from innocent and the only targets he ever bombed were statues and government buildings that resulted in no casualties. He was part of a small, well-armed militia opposed to tyranny, there's nothing wrong with that and his movement in general did a lot of good and would have done much more if not for all the illegal interference.

[SpoonMan999]

I like how you use Joe Lieberman to smear McCain when in fact Lieberman supports McCain and has left the Democratic party to become an independent.

Legitimate reasons to support McCain:
-With so many lay-offs the tax cuts for businesses will stop people from losing their jobs left and right and make it more affordable for companies to start hiring the people who already did lose said jobs.
-Obama's "let's stop the war and bring down the deficit by spending three times what we are in Iraq" economic plan makes no sense. How are you going to get us out of debt by spending more money?
-He supports increasing our own supply of oil but still maintaining a sense of environmental responsibility, despite massive criticism from Republicans.
-He understands the need to fight some times and the futility of talking to certain people.
-Terrorists being held don't deserve the basic rights that you and I have, what they do is deplorable. With the loop holes inherit in our judicial system they should not have the opportunity to exploit it.
-He isn't associated with known terrorists or racist extremists.
-And lastly, he's not Barack Obama.

In this post I briefly gave a few reasons. Reasons which include:
-The economy
-Foreign policy
-Resolution to the oil crisis
-Stance on terrorists
-Concern for the evironment

In another thread I also mention his desire to persue alternate fuels.

You said you would be willing to restate these. So please, either point out a specific post where you make a diferent argument or post one here.

[Cop No. 633]

The only innocents the Weatherman killed from what I gathered were members of their own group who knew what they were getting themselves into. Who were these innocent people you are talking about?

3 of them died handling a bomb that went off by accident. Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins. Members of the group. Stop trying to act like they killed innocent people. They knew what they were getting themselves into.

[QUENTIN]

McCain's economic plan, like most conservative economic plans post the great Satan (Ronald Reagan), are a bunch of supply side economics nonsense. Supply side economics, trickle down economics, etc, are nonsense. They have been proven to be essentially nonsense over the past 30 years or so. Their ridiculously positive predictions never actually happened. These plans, i.e. giving tax cuts to the rich to revitalize the economy and hopefully the money trickles down to the middle class and the poor and everyone has money and then revenue balances out doesn't actually happen. John McCain isn't actually planning on decreasing government expenses substantially, especially since he's fine with continuing the war in Iraq and increasing the size of the military, etc. So he's not going to actually reduce government spending dramatically, but he's not going to increase government revenue... So what exactly is that going to achieve? More debt. The middle class isn't some phenomenon that magically occurs out of nowhere; it is formed, by government policy, by welfare, by tax reform, etc. Conservatives have been chipping away at it for years, and McCain is happy to continue with this.


Essentially McCain's economic policies are all fundamentally terrible because he is adamant on continuing the "tax cuts to the rich stimulates the economy and makes everyone richer" philosophy that is just patently untrue. Since that is his philosophy, all his economic plans will, by default, be awful.

Exactly, all one must do is look at the U.S. economy since 1980. Reagan institutes trickle-down economics and we plunge into immense national debt never seen before in the world, the budget deficit tripling in 8 years, the Savings and Loan crisis, and a stock market crash. G.H.W. Bush continues these policies and poverty and unemployment increase and we go through a recession. Clinton becomes the president, passes the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 without a single Republican voting for it, and we end up with the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years and the largest budget surplus ever and enjoy 8 years of an ever-improving economy. Bush takes office, re-institutes Reaganomics and look where the economy's at.

It really is as simple as "It's the economy, stupid" The modern conservative economic platform DOES NOT WORK, this has been proven by the effects of its implementation. The modern liberal economic platform DOES WORK, also proven by the effects of its implementation.

[SpoonMan999]

By the way, how nice that the Politics forum is this jumping right now. I can't remember so many people saying so much at once since November 2004 and half of that was "No, Lynn, Saddam wasn't one of the pilots of the hijacked planes."

When I requested access to this forum the reason I gave was to make it more interesting. Quite frankly I got tired of reading about you guys agreeing with each other all the time and wanted to provide an opposition. Which is one reason I post the way I do, I realize I'm being an ass at times but I do it because I genuinely want to read your responses.

[SpoonMan999]

The only innocents the Weatherman killed from what I gathered were members of their own group who knew what they were getting themselves into. Who were these innocent people you are talking about?

3 of them died handling a bomb that went off by accident. Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins. Members of the group. Stop trying to act like they killed innocent people. They knew what they were getting themselves into.

Read up a little more on it and you're right only they're own people died, but those that died were wiring a bomb beneath a home...if you believe they weren't trying to kill people then I can't seriously debate you on this.

[QUENTIN]

By the way, how nice that the Politics forum is this jumping right now. I can't remember so many people saying so much at once since November 2004 and half of that was "No, Lynn, Saddam wasn't one of the pilots of the hijacked planes."

[MadsenOMC]

In this post I briefly gave a few reasons. Reasons which include:
-The economy
-Foreign policy
-Resolution to the oil crisis
-Stance on terrorists
-Concern for the evironment

In another thread I also mention his desire to persue alternate fuels.

You said you would be willing to restate these. So please, either point out a specific post where you make a diferent argument or post one here.

And round and round we go.

1.) The economy - McCain said more than once that he doesn't understand it. That alone makes Obama a better choice on this issue. Plus, I believe that McCain will continue Bush's economic policies, which will only continue to widen the gap between the rich and poor in this country. I believe that Obama cares more about all people, not just rich white people, and is better suited to improving the economy for everyone.

2.) Foreign policy - McCain supports the war in Iraq; I don't. McCain will be too eager and willing to get us into another war and will too easily resort to the use of force. He will continue Bush's foreign policy, which has been disastrous and has caused the rest of the world to hate us.

3.) I have no idea what McCain's resolution ideas are. Maybe you can tell me.

I'm going out of order.

4.) I do not believe that McCain is concerned for the environment. However, it's not a hugely important issue to me. I believe there are far greater problems right now.

5.) His pursuit of alternate fuels? Right. Again, there are far more pressing matters.

6.) Finally, his stance on terrorists. I don't agree with them.

I hope this satisfies you.

[Homyrrh]

By the way, how nice that the Politics forum is this jumping right now. I can't remember so many people saying so much at once since November 2004 and half of that was "No, Lynn, Saddam wasn't one of the pilots of the hijacked planes."
I take full, uncontested credit :D

And I can support that.

[QUENTIN]

Read up a little more on it and you're right only they're own people died, but those that died were wiring a bomb beneath a home...if you believe they weren't trying to kill people then I can't seriously debate you on this.

Continue reading, you're the one who can't seriously debate this until you inform yourself. I've read and seen a lot about The Weathermen and all the related anti-government groups of the era. They made a lot of bombs and what did they destroy? Like I said, statues and symbols, not people. And Ayers did not participate in the armored car heist, so you've yet to establish how you can call him a terrorist or "killer of innocents" or anything of the sort. He only broke the law to combat the government that was disregarding the law and his rights. There is a difference between terrorist and freedom fighter.

[SpoonMan999]

And round and round we go.

1.) The economy - McCain said more than once that he doesn't understand it. That alone makes Obama a better choice on this issue. Plus, I believe that McCain will continue Bush's economic policies, which will only continue to widen the gap between the rich and poor in this country. I believe that Obama cares more about all people, not just rich white people, and is better suited to improving the economy for everyone.

2.) Foreign policy - McCain supports the war in Iraq; I don't. McCain will be too eager and willing to get us into another war and will too easily resort to the use of force. He will continue Bush's foreign policy, which has been disastrous and has caused the rest of the world to hate us.

3.) I have no idea what McCain's resolution ideas are. Maybe you can tell me.

I'm going out of order.

4.) I do not believe that McCain is concerned for the environment. However, it's not a hugely important issue to me. I believe there are far greater problems right now.

5.) His pursuit of alternate fuels? Right. Again, there are far more pressing matters.

6.) Finally, his stance on terrorists. I don't agree with them.

I hope this satisfies you.

Well it's a start.

1.Bush similarities again, but you explained your point so I'll take it.

2.He actually difers from Bush here in a big way, such as not wanting to take the "we'll go it alone" approach. He wants to try and make us more favorable with other countries though I haven't seen a difiinitive plan here more just an idea.

3.He wants to drill off the coast of California and Florida, as well as other areas and avoid comprimising the natural beauty of areas like the Arctic or Alaska.

4.Stated above. He also argued this point with Bill O'Reilly briefly, which I think shows major back bone by down right disagreeing with one of the most popular hosts on his side of the spectrum.

5.His plan is to increase the oil supply and get this crisis under control and persuing alternate fuels once things are stable, after we have the oil situation under control there will be plenty of money to throw at researchers for this cause.

6.Personally I can't see how anyone feels any sympathy towards terrorists but to each their own.

[SpoonMan999]

Continue reading, you're the one who can't seriously debate this until you inform yourself. I've read and seen a lot about The Weathermen and all the related anti-government groups of the era. They made a lot of bombs and what did they destroy? Like I said, statues and symbols, not people. And Ayers did not participate in the armored car heist, so you've yet to establish how you can call him a terrorist or "killer of innocents" or anything of the sort. He only broke the law to combat the government that was disregarding the law and his rights. There is a difference between terrorist and freedom fighter.

Again, what I read said the bomb was placed beneath someone's home. That is intent to kill and enough for me. Also, his wife was arrested over the armored car matter.

By the way, how nice that the Politics forum is this jumping right now. I can't remember so many people saying so much at once since November 2004 and half of that was "No, Lynn, Saddam wasn't one of the pilots of the hijacked planes."

I responded to this but my post seems to have poofed...What I had said was along the lines of:

I originally asked for permission to join this forming with the reason oof livining it up. I had been reading it for a few days and pretty much just saw people endlessly agreeing with each other and it was pretty dull. I may come off as an ass sometimes with a few of my posts but I do it because I genuinely want to read your responses.

[MadsenOMC]

Again, environmental policies are not my number one concern, but I trust a Democrat to do more to protect it than a Republican.

I do not see any "big differences" between McCain and Bush on foreign policy. It is very easy to say that you want the rest of the world behind us again. I don't think McCain truly has any interest in that.

I never said I sympathize with terrorists, but thanks for implying that I do. Typical right wing BS. I say I don't agree with McCain and I automatically sympathize with terrorists. Nice leap.

[SpoonMan999]

Again, environmental policies are not my number one concern, but I trust a Democrat to do more to protect it than a Republican.

I do not see any "big differences" between McCain and Bush on foreign policy. It is very easy to say that you want the rest of the world behind us again. I don't think McCain truly has any interest in that.

I never said I sympathize with terrorists, but thanks for implying that I do. Typical right wing BS. I say I don't agree with McCain and I automatically sympathize with terrorists. Nice leap.

If you're just going to continue with this condescending attitude I'm just going to stop talking to you. I'm here because I enjoy debate not being rediculed.

[QUENTIN]

Again, what I read said the bomb was placed beneath someone's home. That is intent to kill and enough for me. Also, his wife was arrested over the armored car matter.


I don't know what you're talking about or where you read that. It was in a Weathermen safehouse in Greenwich Village, not some poor, innocent sap's house and it wasn't "planted", they were wiring it and fucked up, then it exploded, killing 3 members of the group and no one else.

[SpoonMan999]

I don't know what you're talking about or where you read that. It was in a Weathermen safehouse in Greenwich Village, not some poor, innocent sap's house and it wasn't "planted", they were wiring it and fucked up, then it exploded, killing 3 members of the group and no one else.

I misread, sorry. Either way I stand by that bombing anything is not an acceptable way to protest, it takes one person on a late night stroll crossing by one of those statues to turn it into murder.

"The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is."
-Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University

According to the police they had enough explosives to "level both sides of the street."

[Scarfather]

This thread having gone on for three pages tells me that someone here has said that they want McCain to be Puppet-in-Chief. Can anyone give me the cliff notes version?

Is the schmoe a misanthrope who is voting for McCain because he wants to see the end of America and humanity, or is he really so delusional that he's allowed himself to be convinced that McCain isn't one of the worst human beings alive?

[QUENTIN]

I misread, sorry. Either way I stand by that bombing anything is not an acceptable way to protest,

Why not? What if what you're protesting is a behemoth organization that runs the country you live in and daily practices illegal mass murder abroad, frequent murder at home, harasses you and your family in every conceivable way including many illegal, invasive, terrorist activities, and makes it impossible to protest peacefully by arriving at every non-violent organized protest and beating senseless everyone taking part and legally exercising their rights? What do you suggest they do as an alternative? Just sit and take it? Risk being beaten to death (or shot like students at Kent State) for doing nothing more than practicing the rights bestowed upon by them the same government that violates their rights and their person? Seriously, you must recommend some reasonable alternative to what they did if you're going to try to maintain that they were "terrorists" and bombing a STATUE is not an acceptable way to protest an unbearable, tyrannical government that is terrorizing you and much of the American citizenry as well as millions of innocent civilians overseas.

[Cop No. 633]

I misread, sorry. Either way I stand by that bombing anything is not an acceptable way to protest, it takes one person on a late night stroll crossing by one of those statues to turn it into murder.

But they didn't murder anybody. That's the point. I swear, you guys change your goal posts to whatever the situation calls for. First it's "They're terrorists because they killed innocent people!" We prove that wrong by facts and then you change it to, "They bombed somebody's house!" Then it's "They're terrorists for wanting to bomb something!"

Well, what is it? Because by that last definition our military are terrorists for bombing a country that posed no threat to us, had no connection to 9/11 even though our government vehemently, and they had no weapons of mass destruction like our President said was truth. I would say our government committed terrorist acts bombing civilian houses and killing many civilians based on your opinion on the subject. The knife goes both ways. You can't say you won't vote for Obama because he is friends with a terrorist and then go and say I'll support a President who wants to continue this charade of "spreading democracy" in a country none of these big wigs really give a shit about. Do you honestly think these people care about Iraq? Do you think us being there longer is going to be better for them or better for us? There's a point where we have to stop looking at our interests and start looking at the people who we've invaded.

[SpoonMan999]

But they didn't murder anybody. That's the point. I swear, you guys change your goal posts to whatever the situation calls for. First it's "They're terrorists because they killed innocent people!" We prove that wrong by facts and then you change it to, "They bombed somebody's house!" Then it's "They're terrorists for wanting to bomb something!"

Well, what is it? Because by that last definition our military are terrorists for bombing a country that posed no threat to us, had no connection to 9/11 even though our government vehemently, and they had no weapons of mass destruction like our President said was truth. I would say our government committed terrorist acts bombing civilian houses and killing many civilians based on your opinion on the subject. The knife goes both ways. You can't say you won't vote for Obama because he is friends with a terrorist and then go and say I'll support a President who wants to continue this charade of "spreading democracy" in a country none of these big wigs really give a shit about. Do you honestly think these people care about Iraq? Do you think us being there longer is going to be better for them or better for us? There's a point where we have to stop looking at our interests and start looking at the people who we've invaded.

I've addressed the Iraq issue in my post about Scott McClellan's book, even Saddam was spreading the rumors himself so we acted. Also, again somebody is claiming I said something I didn't, I never said that bombing statues makes them terrorists. I said using bombs like that is just not an acceptable way to protest in my opinion, I actually apologized for not knowing the facts of the situation and corrected myself.

And Quentin, if mass murder is involved then it's time for a full scale rebellion, not just protest.

And Scar, how is he one of the people alive? Because you disagree with him? That is the most intolerant comment I've ever seen, on par with some of the crap MovieFan1234 has spewed out in the past.

[MadsenOMC]

So you believe Scott McClellan is a credible source of information SpoonMan?

[Homyrrh]

This thread having gone on for three pages tells me that someone here has said that they want McCain to be Puppet-in-Chief. Can anyone give me the cliff notes version?

Is the schmoe a misanthrope who is voting for McCain because he wants to see the end of America and humanity, or is he really so delusional that he's allowed himself to be convinced that McCain isn't one of the worst human beings alive?
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y23/drsanity/democratic_sealsmall.jpg
Sorry, could only hold out for so long...

[MadsenOMC]

What's the seal for the Republican party? A rich white guy stealing from working class Americans while shooting a few brown people?

[Homyrrh]

What's the seal for the Republican party? A rich white guy stealing from working class Americans while shooting a few brown people?
Heh, it was innapropriate, yes, and things can get thrown either way, but such an inane, insolent, and altogether ridiculous comment deserved nothing less.

Besides, this thread's been in the same spot for two-and-a-half pages.

[MadsenOMC]

Heh, it was innapropriate, yes, and things can get thrown either way, but such an inane, insolent, and altogether ridiculous comment deserved nothing less.

There have been plenty of such comments here, including "Voting for Obama is bad because he is friends with terrorists and crazy preachers" (paraphrasing of course). Scarfather's comment is no worse than that.

[Homyrrh]

There have been plenty of such comments here, including "Voting for Obama is bad because he is friends with terrorists and crazy preachers" (paraphrasing of course). Scarfather's comment is no worse than that.
Uh, actually there's no comparison between the melodrama and subjective unintelligible nature of Scarfather's psot and some bringing up the fact that Barack Obama may, at the very least known someone remotely involved with terrorist organizations and crazy preachers.

I , as even a concious human, know America and humanity will not end if John McCain is voted into office and only the most childish, unfounded, immature, incompetent argument could even try to vainly prove otherwise.

[MadsenOMC]

Uh, actually there's no comparison between the melodrama and subjective unintelligible nature of Scarfather's psot and some bringing up the fact that Barack Obama may, at the very least known someone remotely involved with terrorist organizations and crazy preachers.

Yes there is a comparison. It's using fear to try and argue that Obama is unfit to be president, a classic GOP tactic. McCain's preachers are far crazier than Obama's. Katrina happened because of the gays. That is some insane shit right there. Obama's relationship with that church was blown way out of proportion by the media. My parents are Catholic and they often disagree with that their priest says. Thankfully they aren't running for public office anytime soon.

And Obama "may know someone remotely involved with terrorist organizations?" Well holy shit! Let's lock him up. I bet he knows a lot of people. He's running for president. In fact, I bet McCain knows his fair share of dangerous people as well. I already posted an article about his association with Liddy.

We can't vote for McCain because he was endorsed by crazy preachers and is friends with someone who advocated the murder of federal agents!

[Homyrrh]

Yes there is a comparison. It's using fear to try and argue that Obama is unfit to be president, a classic GOP tactic. McCain's preachers are far crazier than Obama's. Katrina happened because of the gays. That is some insane shit right there. Obama's relationship with that church was blown way out of proportion by the media. My parents are Catholic and they often disagree with that their priest says. Thankfully they aren't running for public office anytime soon.

And Obama "may know someone remotely involved with terrorist organizations?" Well holy shit! Let's lock him up. I bet he knows a lot of people. He's running for president. In fact, I bet McCain knows his fair share of dangerous people as well. I already posted an article about his association with Liddy.

We can't vote for McCain because he was endorsed by crazy preachers and is friends with someone who advocated the murder of federal agents!
Yes, um, but even remotely regarding the incompetence of Scarfather's comment, you have what to say?

[MadsenOMC]

Yes, um, but even remotely regarding the incompetence of Scarfather's comment, you have what to say?

I was outraged by it! I am still seething with anger!

[MadsenOMC]

In other news, I wonder when the media is going to start calling McCain a flip-flopper? John Kerry's got nothing on John M.

CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"If John McCain doesn't stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to independents. Dana Milbank in the Washington Post says that's a delicate dance, and if McCain's not careful, "he's liable to break a hip." Of course, any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from.

On Iraq, the economy, guns, and God, McCain is to the right. On immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming, McCain is to the left. Sort of reminiscent of John Kerry back in 2004. McCain went after Barack Obama yesterday for proposing a windfall tax on the oil companies. A month ago McCain said he was willing to consider a windfall tax on the oil companies. What about offshore drilling? During his run for president in 2000, McCain was against it. Now he's for it, saying the state should decide if they want to drill for oil off their coastlines. This could cost him big-time in states like California and Florida which are very environmentally conscious. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, McCain was against them - twice - now he's for them. McCain has also called for the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay to be closed down, and torture banned. But last week he criticized the Supreme Court's ruling that detainees there should have access to U.S. courts, calling the Supreme Court decision one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

[Homyrrh]

In other news, I wonder when the media is going to start calling McCain a flip-flopper? John Kerry's got nothing on John M.

CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"If John McCain doesn't stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to independents. Dana Milbank in the Washington Post says that's a delicate dance, and if McCain's not careful, "he's liable to break a hip." Of course, any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from.

On Iraq, the economy, guns, and God, McCain is to the right. On immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming, McCain is to the left. Sort of reminiscent of John Kerry back in 2004. McCain went after Barack Obama yesterday for proposing a windfall tax on the oil companies. A month ago McCain said he was willing to consider a windfall tax on the oil companies. What about offshore drilling? During his run for president in 2000, McCain was against it. Now he's for it, saying the state should decide if they want to drill for oil off their coastlines. This could cost him big-time in states like California and Florida which are very environmentally conscious. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, McCain was against them - twice - now he's for them. McCain has also called for the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay to be closed down, and torture banned. But last week he criticized the Supreme Court's ruling that detainees there should have access to U.S. courts, calling the Supreme Court decision one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
Of course from CCN, right? :D

[Homyrrh]

I was outraged by it! I am still seething with anger!
That's better :D...:rolleyes: (which, of course, only denotes my acknowledgement of your sarcasm;))

[Homyrrh]

In other news, I wonder when the media is going to start calling McCain a flip-flopper? John Kerry's got nothing on John M.

CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"If John McCain doesn't stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to independents. Dana Milbank in the Washington Post says that's a delicate dance, and if McCain's not careful, "he's liable to break a hip." Of course, any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from.

On Iraq, the economy, guns, and God, McCain is to the right. On immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming, McCain is to the left. Sort of reminiscent of John Kerry back in 2004. McCain went after Barack Obama yesterday for proposing a windfall tax on the oil companies. A month ago McCain said he was willing to consider a windfall tax on the oil companies. What about offshore drilling? During his run for president in 2000, McCain was against it. Now he's for it, saying the state should decide if they want to drill for oil off their coastlines. This could cost him big-time in states like California and Florida which are very environmentally conscious. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, McCain was against them - twice - now he's for them. McCain has also called for the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay to be closed down, and torture banned. But last week he criticized the Supreme Court's ruling that detainees there should have access to U.S. courts, calling the Supreme Court decision one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
Of course from CCCPN, right? :D

[MadsenOMC]

Of course from CCCPN, right? :D

Yeah cause Jack Cafferty is a raging liberal. A real pinko that one.

Is that network similar to the FNGOPC?

[QUENTIN]

Besides, this thread's been in the same spot for two-and-a-half pages.

That's largely because some of the people debating change what it is they're arguing every time someone brings up a valid point that contradicts, disproves, or disputes something they've said. Goal posts really do get moved 10 times a page here and it is mostly one-sided. The Heart Collector, Cosmic Puppet, and I have provided a lot of data and factual information that generally goes unaddressed. If you hold that McCain's policies are better than Obama's, surely you can provide some data to show this rather than your gut.

McCain's economic plan demonstrably does not work. It has been tried during 5 other presidencies and has always been a miserable failure. Just look at the economy between 1981-1992 and 2001-2008 compared to 1993-2000. Bush's policies in general do not work and have led this country into the nadir of modern American history. Many of McCain's policies are strikingly similar to Bush's, so it is reasonable and likely that they would continue several of the serious problems we face today and not provide the radical and swift change that we need to fix the economy, the war in Iraq, global warming, health care, education, the criminal justice system, dependency on foreign oil, homeland security, the housing crisis, immense national debt, etc. etc.

I really wish this didn't have to be an ad hominem argument, about candidates or each other. I don't much care about what kind of guy McCain is, nor really about Obama's personality. I'd like them not to be curmudgeonly like Nixon or inept at public speaking like Bush, because that does make them ineffective leaders and diplomats, but I don't think that's an issue with either. So shouldn't we be debating their policies and plans rather than who hung out with some guy years ago who may have been an asshole?

As for you, Homyrrh, please address why/how you think opposing war is irresponsible and ignorant, war in general is a good idea, and find the use of atomic bombs defensible.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah cause Jack Cafferty is a raging liberal. A real pinko that one.

Is that network similar to the FNGOPC?
Yes, but I was just basking in my inifinite cleverness ;)

[Homyrrh]

That's largely because some of the people debating change what it is they're arguing every time someone brings up a valid point that contradicts, disproves, or disputes something they've said. Goal posts really do get moved 10 times a page here and it is mostly one-sided. The Heart Collector, Cosmic Puppet, and I have provided a lot of data and factual information that generally goes unaddressed. If you hold that McCain's policies are better than Obama's, surely you can provide some data to show this rather than your gut.

McCain's economic plan demonstrably does not work. It has been tried during 5 other presidencies and has always been a miserable failure. Just look at the economy between 1981-1992 and 2001-2008 compared to 1993-2000. Bush's policies in general do not work and have led this country into the nadir of modern American history. Many of McCain's policies are strikingly similar to Bush's, so it is reasonable and likely that they would continue several of the serious problems we face today and not provide the radical and swift change that we need to fix the economy, the war in Iraq, global warming, health care, education, the criminal justice system, dependency on foreign oil, homeland security, the housing crisis, immense national debt, etc. etc.

I really wish this didn't have to be an ad hominem argument, about candidates or each other. I don't much care about what kind of guy McCain is, nor really about Obama's personality. I'd like them not to be curmudgeonly like Nixon or inept at public speaking like Bush, because that does make them ineffective leaders and diplomats, but I don't think that's an issue with either. So shouldn't we be debating their policies and plans rather than who hung out with some guy years ago who may have been an asshole?

As for you, Homyrrh, please address why/how you think opposing war is irresponsible and ignorant, war in general is a good idea, and find the use of atomic bombs defensible.
I tried to make it clear than condeming war is fine, but one must accept that is is sometimes, nto specifically now, the only means of continued diplomacy. Even I, as the mild authoritarian I sometiems find myself to be, note that the American Revolution was neccesary, jsut like the Civil War, just like WWI and WWII and the Gulf. Vietnam? Iraq 2003-08? Eh, a good illustration of the possible abuses of that diplomatic tactic. My point is that while war is atrocious, it needs to be acknowledged as the final line of diplomacy. So to say one nation should remain isolationist at the gravest of times (i.e.--WWII) is ignorant and naive. I believe this is all just a wordy, exhaustive elaboration on the initial Clark quote.

War, in general, cannot be labeled good or bad. It's a fact of life, it sucks as nothing else does, but it cannot be overlooked when words and meetings fail. I am no warmonger or militant craver of violence, but think of the consequence of removing a standing army (?).

And I did read your atomic bomb post regarding Japan earlier; I really can't comment as I've read otherwise in my own readings, but also acklowdege the validity of your own credibility. Like you said it's another issue I'd discuss on a, uh, less hostile basis than this thread, but I don't feel I'd be able to fairly engage a conversation with the given information. Otehrwise those quotes/docs did perked my interest immensely. Realize I don't support the two bombings for solely the purpose of dropping the bombs but because it saved the "200,000 American lives" (I intentionally disreagrd irrelevancies like money or length of war; not only would it be within the budget, but those decisiosn of such high stature cannot be contingent on money, etc.).

[SpoonMan999]

I really wish this didn't have to be an ad hominem argument, about candidates or each other. I don't much care about what kind of guy McCain is, nor really about Obama's personality. I'd like them not to be curmudgeonly like Nixon or inept at public speaking like Bush, because that does make them ineffective leaders and diplomats, but I don't think that's an issue with either. So shouldn't we be debating their policies and plans rather than who hung out with some guy years ago who may have been an asshole?

I mentioned his friends in a list of other issues I mentioned for why I supported McCain. Which, it's more relevant with Obama because it's not just some priest at the church he happens to go to...it's the man who married him and his wife, baptised his children, and was considered his personal spiritual advisor. Huge diference between taking advice from someone like that and accepting an endorsement from some wack job that you've met once or twice.

Please, don't boil down my argument to one thing I said.

[MadsenOMC]

I mentioned his friends in a list of other issues I mentioned for why I supported McCain. Which, it's more relevant with Obama because it's not just some priest at the church he happens to go to...it's the man who married him and his wife, baptised his children, and was considered his personal spiritual advisor. Huge diference between taking advice from someone like that and accepting an endorsement from some wack job that you've met once or twice.

Please, don't boil down my argument to one thing I said.

McCain didn't just accept their endorsements. He actively pursued their endorsements for over a year because he knew he needed their help to win over the religious right. You can't just brush that off and say it doesn't matter. Even if Wright married Obama and baptized his children, that doesn't mean he agrees with him on every issue or is just like him. My parents frequently disagree with their priest, the one who married them and baptized me.

[QUENTIN]

More to the point -Isn't it FAR, FAR, FAR more important to you, me, and the American citizenry what Obama and McCain's policies are and how they will run the country than who they hang out with? I'm not saying who they've associated with, been advised by, or taken endorsement from doesn't matter but we're only discussing the petty, small shit and avoiding all the issues that actually matter and will dramatically effect the country.

[QUENTIN]

I mentioned his friends in a list of other issues I mentioned for why I supported McCain. Which, it's more relevant with Obama because it's not just some priest at the church he happens to go to...it's the man who married him and his wife, baptised his children, and was considered his personal spiritual advisor. Huge diference between taking advice from someone like that and accepting an endorsement from some wack job that you've met once or twice.

Please, don't boil down my argument to one thing I said.

My point is, you haven't provided any EVIDENCE for why McCain would be a better president. Saying "he has real experience" or "he'll be better at foreign policy" isn't evidence, it's an unsubstantiated opinion. Cosmic Puppet, Heart Collector, and I provided evidence for why McCain's economic policy will not work. I'm asking that you back what you have to say and provide some evidence that it will. It doesn't have to be the economy, just provide something other than solely a single, baseless opinion on WHY he'll make a better president or HOW what he will do will benefit the country.

[MadsenOMC]

More to the point -Isn't it FAR, FAR, FAR more important to you, me, and the American citizenry what Obama and McCain's policies are and how they will run the country than who they hang out with? I'm not saying who they've associated with, been advised by, or taken endorsement from doesn't matter but we're only discussing the petty, small shit and avoiding all the issues that actually matter and will dramatically effect the country.

Yes this is very true.

[SpoonMan999]

I like how you use Joe Lieberman to smear McCain when in fact Lieberman supports McCain and has left the Democratic party to become an independent.

Legitimate reasons to support McCain:
-With so many lay-offs the tax cuts for businesses will stop people from losing their jobs left and right and make it more affordable for companies to start hiring the people who already did lose said jobs.
-Obama's "let's stop the war and bring down the deficit by spending three times what we are in Iraq" economic plan makes no sense. How are you going to get us out of debt by spending more money?
-He supports increasing our own supply of oil but still maintaining a sense of environmental responsibility, despite massive criticism from Republicans.
-He understands the need to fight some times and the futility of talking to certain people.
-Terrorists being held don't deserve the basic rights that you and I have, what they do is deplorable. With the loop holes inherit in our judicial system they should not have the opportunity to exploit it.
-He isn't associated with known terrorists or racist extremists.
-And lastly, he's not Barack Obama.

Again, that was just one point I brought up that YOU are focusing on and I am merely defending. I get the feeling that sometimes you guys are just skipping over some of my posts. I provide my reasoning for my support in the policies mentioned and also a couple of character points in the above post. Do I post a detailed graph on them? No, because these are my opinions not necessarily facts.

[SpoonMan999]

More to the point -Isn't it FAR, FAR, FAR more important to you, me, and the American citizenry what Obama and McCain's policies are and how they will run the country than who they hang out with? I'm not saying who they've associated with, been advised by, or taken endorsement from doesn't matter but we're only discussing the petty, small shit and avoiding all the issues that actually matter and will dramatically effect the country.

You're right it is very unimportant compared to other issues, however I was attacked on that issue and thus I defended my opinion. If that's the issue Madsen wants to talk about then so be it but as I just posted I have made other opinions known.

[MadsenOMC]

You're right it is very unimportant compared to other issues, however I was attacked on that issue and thus I defended my opinion. If that's the issue Madsen wants to talk about then so be it but as I just posted I have made other opinions known.

Oh for fuck sake you were not attacked. All I did was post my own opinion on it, the same as you.

[QUENTIN]

Again, that was just one point I brought up that YOU are focusing on and I am merely defending. I get the feeling that sometimes you guys are just skipping over some of my posts. I provide my reasoning for my support in the policies mentioned and also a couple of character points in the above post. Do I post a detailed graph on them? No, because these are my opinions not necessarily facts.

I read that post, there are no facts in it. I don't need a detailed graph, though that would be one example of data and real fact that could substantiate any of the claims you made in that post.

I can prove that "With so many lay-offs the tax cuts for businesses will stop people from losing their jobs left and right and make it more affordable for companies to start hiring the people who already did lose said jobs." for instance is demonstrably untrue. It's been tried in five other administration and has never resulted in less unemployment. The businesses take the tax cuts and add them to their profits, layoffs still happen, jobs still get shipped overseas and at no slower a rate.

You say "these are my opinions, not necessarily facts" and that's true. What I'm saying is, in order to have a debate that is productive, that goes somewhere, that isn't just two sides shouting opposing opinions at each other, you need to bring facts, evidence, data into the mix. You hold these opinions and you must hold them for some reason, so provide your reasoning. Debating opinions is pretty futile, facts are essential for this discussion to be worth our time and so far only one side is providing them.

[SpoonMan999]

Oh for fuck sake you were not attacked. All I did was post my own opinion on it, the same as you.

I don't believe I can have a rational debate with someone who says incredibly stupid and untrue shit like "Obama is friends with known terrorists." That sounds like someone who only gets their news from Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel.

I really don't need to post anymore on how condescending and disrespectful you've been in this.

I read that post, there are no facts in it. I don't need a detailed graph, though that would be one example of data and real fact that could substantiate any of the claims you made in that post.

I can prove that "With so many lay-offs the tax cuts for businesses will stop people from losing their jobs left and right and make it more affordable for companies to start hiring the people who already did lose said jobs." for instance is demonstrably untrue. It's been tried in five other administration and has never resulted in less unemployment. The businesses take the tax cuts and add them to their profits, layoffs still happen, jobs still get shipped overseas and at no slower a rate.

You say "these are my opinions, not necessarily facts" and that's true. What I'm saying is, in order to have a debate that is productive, that goes somewhere, that isn't just two sides shouting opposing opinions at each other, you need to bring facts, evidence, data into the mix. You hold these opinions and you must hold them for some reason, so provide your reasoning. Debating opinions is pretty futile, facts are essential for this discussion to be worth our time and so far only one side is providing them.

I was asked my reasons and I gave my opinions. I don't read online news too often like Madsen does, most of my news comes from the radio on my drive too and from work and from a few diferent stations. I try to listen to both liberal and conservative stations and sometimes agree with the left but most often agree with the right. I think the most compelling argument I heard for McCain and the flaws in Obama's ecnomic plan came from John Forbes if I can find a transcript of it I'll post it.

[MadsenOMC]

I really don't need to post anymore on how condescending and disrespectful you've been in this.

You have made similar posts, saying you couldn't take anyone seriously if they used sources like Vanity Fair, so quit being a hypocrite.

[MadsenOMC]

I disrespected Vanity Fair if anything making the point that's not exactly a credible source for politcal reading.

Is it any less credible than your sources? Does who the writer is have anything to do with it, or is Vanity Fair just always bad in your view?

[SpoonMan999]

You have made similar posts, saying you couldn't take anyone seriously if they used sources like Vanity Fair, so quit being a hypocrite.

I disrespected Vanity Fair if anything making the point that's not exactly a credible source for politcal reading.

[MadsenOMC]

Staying on Bush's Course

Here's some straight talk: McCain's fiscal program is either a joke or a fantasy.

By Daniel Gross

In the last week, the three remaining presidential candidates made big-picture economic speeches that were perfectly in keeping with the tone of their campaigns. Barack Obama delivered his speech, introduced by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (a potential Obamacan?), at Cooper Union, a venue long identified with great oratory. Hillary Clinton tactically delivered her speech in the current battleground state of Pennsylvania and offered a list of solutions. Both campaigns have remarkably detailed (and remarkably similar) platforms on how to attack the various economic woes facing America.

John McCain, fresh from a whirlwind tour aimed at demonstrating his foreign-policy credentials, took a somewhat different approach. There's an emerging theme surrounding his campaign: The problem with the last eight years isn't that the Bush administration had the wrong policies or was incompetent. No, the problem is that it lacked intensity. Which is why McCain is bent on offering a more concentrated, sustained, high-energy form of Bushism. Bush has been adamant about staying in Iraq until the end of his presidency; McCain is adamant about staying up to 100 years, if necessary. Bush has taken to carefully cherry-picking facts and metrics (the number of soccer games visible from the air, to cite one) to construct a narrative on how well things are going there. (I bet there weren't many soccer matches in Sadr City today.) McCain prefers simple declarations to data points: "We're winning. I don't care what people say. I've seen the facts on the ground."

The same holds true for the economy. By virtue of his history as a deficit hawk, a foe of earmarks, and an opponent of the Bush tax cuts—not to mention the presence of reality-based advisers like Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office—McCain deserves some benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, the brains behind the economic operation seems to be former Sen. Phil Gramm, the Texas A&M economist-turned-senator who confidently forecast in 1993 that the Clinton program of spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy would be "a one-way ticket to recession." And the sections on McCain's Web site about domestic policy reveal, as Matt Yglesias noted, "a nearly astounding level of vacuity."

Reading McCain's economic agenda and listening to his speech, it appears that the problem with the last eight years is that we haven't seen enough tax breaks for the wealthy, that economic royalism hasn't been pursued with sufficient vigor, and that the middle and working classes haven't been stiffed sufficiently.

McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which he once opposed as a needless sop to the rich in a time of war. (I await David Brooks' inevitable explanation of how opposing taxes in a time of war in 2001 and 2003, when deficits were low, but supporting them in 2011, in a time of war and high deficits, is deeply moral and admirable.) But McCain wants to see Bush's tax relief and raise it some. McCain would slash the corporate-income-tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent (because corporate profits as a percentage of GDP didn't spike enough this decade?), and he'd abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would be a welcome move for many upper-middle-class taxpayers. "In all, his tax-cutting proposals could cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain campaign," the Wall Street Journal reported. And how to make up for the lost revenues? Hmmm. McCain promises to cut earmarks; to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; and to reduce the projected growth of Medicare; but he won't provide many numbers. As the WSJ deadpanned: "The cost will make it difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term." That's perhaps the understatement of the year. The 2009 budget calls for a deficit of $407 billion on projected receipts of $2.7 trillion*, as this table shows. Essentially, McCain wants to cut revenues by about 15 percent from current levels, with nothing close to that in spending reductions, in a time when, even after spending excess Social Security payroll taxes, the deficit is running at more than $400 billion. Here's some straight talk: McCain's fiscal program is either a joke or a fantasy.

McCain's housing speech, delivered in Orange County, Calif., ground zero of the housing crisis, was a mixed bag. He provided a good description of the problem. But his solution to an era in which financial deregulation set the stage for federal bailouts, rampant speculation, and reckless lending is ... less regulation. "Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting, and tax impediments to raising capital." Bizarrely, he has also joined the chorus arguing that mark-to-market accounting—the rules that require companies to, you know, tell investors the actual market value of assets they hold—should be revisited.

The Federal Reserve and the Bush administration have justified the extraordinary help offered to investment banks and investors by saying that it matters less how we got here and more how we deal with the situation as it is. For McCain, however, it's all about the journey. Poor decisions should not be rewarded—unless those poor decisions are made by really rich people who run investment banks and hedge funds. While "those who act irresponsibly" shouldn't be bailed out as a matter of principle, it's OK to take extraordinary measures to help banks prevent "systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy." Obama and Clinton—and the Bush administration, through its various efforts to ease the mortgage crisis—have argued that it might be possible to spare further systemic risk if something were done to buck up the fortunes of homeowners. Bollocks, says McCain. People should just put up more money for down payments and work harder to keep current with their mortgage payments.

Straight talk? No doubt. At a time of rampant economic insecurity and low consumer confidence, at the end of a business cycle in which median incomes didn't rise and the percentage of working people with health insurance fell, McCain won't succumb to the easy temptation of saying that government policy can help improve the situation. But smart politics? I wonder. What's left of the Republican Party is becoming increasingly downscale, and many swing states have been ravaged by the housing crisis (Nevada, Florida) and globalization (Ohio, Michigan). Besides, he's already got the let-them-eat-cake vote sewed up.

[Scarfather]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y23/drsanity/democratic_sealsmall.jpg
Sorry, could only hold out for so long...

I like it when this happens because it's like an absolute confession of being completely THICK.

I'm about as nonpartisan as anyone could possibly be, so such an outstandingly baseless reaction paints a clear picture of you.

[Homyrrh]

I like it when this happens because it's like an absolute confession of being completely THICK.

I'm about as nonpartisan as anyone could possibly be, so such an outstandingly baseless reaction paints a clear picture of you.
This thread having gone on for three pages tells me that someone here has said that they want McCain to be Puppet-in-Chief. Can anyone give me the cliff notes version?

Is the schmoe a misanthrope who is voting for McCain because he wants to see the end of America and humanity, or is he really so delusional that he's allowed himself to be convinced that McCain isn't one of the worst human beings alive?

:eek::confused:

[QUENTIN]

Knowing McCain would make a miserable president and it's almost impossible to reasonably argue otherwise (the fact that no one has done so helps show that) doesn't make one a Democrat or partisan, Homyrrh.

[Scarfather]

This thread having gone on for three pages tells me that someone here has said that they want McCain to be Puppet-in-Chief. Can anyone give me the cliff notes version?

Is the schmoe a misanthrope who is voting for McCain because he wants to see the end of America and humanity, or is he really so delusional that he's allowed himself to be convinced that McCain isn't one of the worst human beings alive?

Look how I damn the Republican party, dismiss conservatism and support Obama!

Wait..

[Homyrrh]

Knowing McCain would make a miserable president and it's almost impossible to reasonably argue otherwise (the fact that no one has done so helps show that) doesn't make one a Democrat or partisan, Homyrrh.

Look how I damn the Republican party, dismiss conservatism and support Obama!

Wait..

Oh, no, the image I posted was for sake of humor; I think I even noted it was immature and unnecessary.

Just don't accuse me of being "baseless" when your initial post was rife with the same unsupported claim. Not sure why this has gone on for this long without objective logic prevailing.

[Cop No. 633]

Just thought I would post this instead of keeping up the back and forth skirmishes. This is why I want the war to end. I'm sick of seeing our government and corporations try to profit from this war. It's inhumane and I want to end now. It's a big reason why my vote will go to Obama and not McCain. We can't keep up the charade any longer. We've ruined a whole country's way of life all in the name of spreading democracy.*

These people haven't felt safe in years. They don't have any place to call a home, much less have a computer to bitch on. They're worse off today than when Saddam was in power. That's really pathetic to say that too. I wish it wasn't the truth, but it is.

We're simply adding more fuel to the fire by just being there. We fast forwarded a civil war that was eventually going to happen, but we made it 10 times worse and there's no way we could fix it by staying there even longer. We just look like greedy, sniveling cowards to the rest of the world.

This is why I can't bring myself to vote for McCain who wants to continue Bush' most tragic and flawed policy of his "legacy." This is where they're too alike for me to even consider him a viable candidate.


500,000 Iraqi Refugees In 2007: Report
By William C. Mann

WASHINGTON — A half-million Iraqis fled their embattled country in 2007, the third consecutive year more Iraqis were displaced than any other nationality, a survey of the world's refugees reported Thursday.

As before, most went to neighboring Syria, and some fanned out into other neighboring countries, the survey by the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants said. It said the United States accepted few, just over half the 3,000 it had promised to resettle by the end of September.

The report said the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees had referred 10,000 Iraqis for U.S. resettlement.

It said the Iraqi exodus "from the violence and instability of their homeland" constituted "the largest refugee crisis of 2007."

"While the Bush administration and the United Kingdom are busy trying to win the war, they have provided no leadership toward ensuring the rights and well-being of the victims of this war," the report said. "Europe, which for the most part warned of the dire humanitarian consequences of the war, has also done nothing to help the people they were so concerned about."

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said the survey "shows the United States still has far to go to support the rights of refugees worldwide."

"The United States has a moral obligation and a security interest in trying to alleviate the suffering of Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons, particularly those who risked so much over the past few years to help our military and diplomatic efforts in their country," Cardin said Wednesday.

Iraqis were not the only group for which the survey faulted U.S. policies.

In its "Report Card" section, it gave the United States an "F," the lowest grade, for returning refugees to their home countries without hearing them out, a practice called "refoulement." China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Libya and others failed the same category.

"We gave the United States an F in refoulement entirely for its treatment of Haitians," Merrill Smith, editor of the report, said Wednesday.

The survey said the United States interdicted 6,400 foreign nationals at sea in 2007, almost all Cubans or Haitians.

Cubans but not Haitians were told they had the right to seek asylum. Haitians who did not shout out their fear of reprisals at home were sent back, almost 1,600 in all. Cubans who did not accept the American offer of requesting asylum, 3,200 of them, were returned as well.

For Cubans, the practice implements the "dry foot" policy that allows Cubans who cross the 90 miles of water between Cuba and south Florida to remain, but those caught at sea are returned unless they can claim valid refugee status. The policy does not include people fleeing Haiti.

"We use the 'shout test' for Haitians," Smith said. "If somebody hears a Haitian shout out a claim to asylum, he will not be sent back" until the claim is investigated.

Many countries treat refugees from different countries or areas differently. The survey rates a country's efforts for each ethnic or racial group and makes the country's overall score that of the lowest ethnic group.

"The mistreatment of refugees is not limited to poor countries or undemocratic regimes," the survey compilers wrote. "Wealthy industrial nations utilize policies designed to limit the number of refugees that enter their territory, explaining that they have limited resources, that refugees are unable to integrate or that some other country had primary responsibility."

Europe appears in a section titled "Worst Places for Refugees." Smith said it did not use the word "The" because there are too many violators to make that distinction.

"European countries have crafted policies that essentially deny access by making it as difficult as possible to enter their territory," the survey says. "Countries on the periphery of Europe had the harshest policies, protecting their wealthy neighbors to the north and west, often for money."

It faults European countries for forcibly returning failed asylum seekers "to manifestly dangerous situations." It cited:

_France's dispatch of a Chadian asylum seeker to Chad, where he was detained and forcibly interrogated.

_Sweden's deportation of an Iraqi directly to Baghdad.

_Greece's assault on potential asylum seekers to force them back into Turkish waters, including an attempt to swamp them with waves; a Greek fisherman was shot and killed after he was mistaken for an asylum seeker.

*really means making some CEO's bank accounts get a few more zeros.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah, war profiteering's despicable, just realize companies like Lockheed, Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, etc., exist solely to provide national defense implements; it's just happenstance that some of their contracts include double-dealing, bribery, immorality, etc.

Not sure if Iraqis are "worse off", just really not any better. It's like the 'V for Vendetta' addage of whether pure totalitarianism or pure anarchy is better than the other.

[Cop No. 633]

But there's at least 500,000 people (the number is usually higher when they give these estimates) who don't want to be in Iraq because of our occupation and because of how dangers it is. These people all lived in Iraq before we came in and now they're all displaced. They could have left before if the living conditions were the same as you put it.

The difference is that they at least had a home to go to and they had access to food, water, and had a job before we went in there. Of course, they still lived under Saddam who I oppose in every way as a human being, but even I know it's naive to think they're "the same" or "better" today than they were before we went in there.

[MadsenOMC]

This speaks volumes about the two McCains (from an AP news story last night):

"He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics," complained Rosanna Pulido, a Hispanic and conservative Republican who attended the meeting.

Pulido, who heads the Illinois Minuteman Project, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, said she thought McCain was "pandering to the crowd" by emphasizing immigration reform in his 15-minute speech.

"He's having his private meetings to rally Hispanics and to tell them what they want to hear," she said. "I'm outraged that he would reach out to me as a Hispanic but not as a conservative."

[The Heart Collector]

Not sure if Iraqis are "worse off", just really not any better. It's like the 'V for Vendetta' addage of whether pure totalitarianism or pure anarchy is better than the other.
Hundreds of thousands died, hundreds of thousands left the country, electricity levels are still poor, infrastructure is still poor, and theyre not safe. they pretty much are worse off by every possible metric.

[SpoonMan999]

This speaks volumes about the two McCains (from an AP news story last night):

"He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics," complained Rosanna Pulido, a Hispanic and conservative Republican who attended the meeting.

Pulido, who heads the Illinois Minuteman Project, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, said she thought McCain was "pandering to the crowd" by emphasizing immigration reform in his 15-minute speech.

"He's having his private meetings to rally Hispanics and to tell them what they want to hear," she said. "I'm outraged that he would reach out to me as a Hispanic but not as a conservative."

He was appealing to the interests of the demographic he was speaking to? THAT BASTARD

[MadsenOMC]

He was appealing to the interests of the demographic he was speaking to? THAT BASTARD

It's called pandering. But I'm not surprised you interpreted it differently.

It was a conservative who complained about him being two different candidates, one for the white crowd and one for the Hispanics. The same is true when he's trying to get the Evangelical vote. But maybe it's only a problem for you when a Democrat does it.

[SpoonMan999]

Hundreds of thousands died, hundreds of thousands left the country, electricity levels are still poor, infrastructure is still poor, and theyre not safe. they pretty much are worse off by every possible metric.

See I keep reading things like this but then I speak to my brother, who served in Iraq just outside of Sadr City, and he tells me the huge decreases in violence he saw over just a few months when he first got there. He tells me about training the Iraqi police department and the corruption he saw there slowly getting better and the officers becoming more efficient. Now, he saw plenty of action and horrible things but he said all in all he saw a slow but steady decline in those things. And don't say he must have been in a good area because Sadr City is among the worst areas.

[SpoonMan999]

It's called pandering. But I'm not surprised you interpreted it differently.

It was a conservative who complained about him being two different candidates, one for the white crowd and one for the Hispanics. The same is true when he's trying to get the Evangelical vote. But maybe it's only a problem for you when a Democrat does it.

I have no problem when a Democrat does it. It's politics...all politicians are liars and two-faced...even your beloved Barack Obama, get over it.

[MadsenOMC]

I have no problem when a Democrat does it. It's politics...all politicians are liars and two-faced...even your beloved Barack Obama, get over it.

My beloved Obama? That's funny. Get over it? Wow, you are witty today. What did you have for breakfast?

[SpoonMan999]

You disagree? Try stepping away from being so personal and focus on the issue. I admit the "beloved" was a bit over board but people need to get over it when a politician does something to help their campaigns...that's what they do.

[MadsenOMC]

You disagree? Try stepping away from being so personal and focus on the issue. I admit the "beloved" was a bit over board but people need to get over it when a politician does something to help their campaigns...that's what they do.

I have said over and over again that I do not worship Obama or consider him a saint. I am a very rational and reasonable voter. I am able to step away and "focus on the issue," thank you very much (a bit condescending there). I don't like pandering or flip-flopping, even if "that's what they do." I think that is a flimsy defense, and I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting more from them or holding them to a higher standard.

[SpoonMan999]

I have said over and over again that I do not worship Obama or consider him a saint. I am a very rational and reasonable voter. I am able to step away and "focus on the issue," thank you very much (a bit condescending there). I don't like pandering or flip-flopping, even if "that's what they do." I think that is a flimsy defense, and I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting more from them or holding them to a higher standard.

You're absolutely right they shouldn't do that, but there's nothing we can do to stop it. Also, I don't consider McCain a flip-flopper because some of these issues people say he switched side on are based on opinions had when circumstances were diferent. And then his position on drilling is being blown way out of proportion, back when he voted against it he said he supported the state's right to choose whether or not they wanted to drill but now we're having major issues with oil and the oil companies so naturally one has to adapt.

[MadsenOMC]

McCain isn't a flip-flopper?

CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"If John McCain doesn't stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to independents. Dana Milbank in the Washington Post says that's a delicate dance, and if McCain's not careful, "he's liable to break a hip." Of course, any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from.

On Iraq, the economy, guns, and God, McCain is to the right. On immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming, McCain is to the left. Sort of reminiscent of John Kerry back in 2004. McCain went after Barack Obama yesterday for proposing a windfall tax on the oil companies. A month ago McCain said he was willing to consider a windfall tax on the oil companies. What about offshore drilling? During his run for president in 2000, McCain was against it. Now he's for it, saying the state should decide if they want to drill for oil off their coastlines. This could cost him big-time in states like California and Florida which are very environmentally conscious. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, McCain was against them - twice - now he's for them. McCain has also called for the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay to be closed down, and torture banned. But last week he criticized the Supreme Court's ruling that detainees there should have access to U.S. courts, calling the Supreme Court decision one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

[SpoonMan999]

McCain isn't a flip-flopper?

CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"If John McCain doesn't stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur. In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to independents. Dana Milbank in the Washington Post says that's a delicate dance, and if McCain's not careful, "he's liable to break a hip." Of course, any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from.

On Iraq, the economy, guns, and God, McCain is to the right. On immigration, campaign finance reform, and global warming, McCain is to the left. Sort of reminiscent of John Kerry back in 2004. McCain went after Barack Obama yesterday for proposing a windfall tax on the oil companies. A month ago McCain said he was willing to consider a windfall tax on the oil companies. What about offshore drilling? During his run for president in 2000, McCain was against it. Now he's for it, saying the state should decide if they want to drill for oil off their coastlines. This could cost him big-time in states like California and Florida which are very environmentally conscious. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, McCain was against them - twice - now he's for them. McCain has also called for the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay to be closed down, and torture banned. But last week he criticized the Supreme Court's ruling that detainees there should have access to U.S. courts, calling the Supreme Court decision one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

You posted this before but I read it again anyway, the only part I can agree he flip-flopped on was the windfall tax. However, i've already explained my reasoning on the oil issue but on the tax cuts all I can say is circumstances were diferent. Back when those cuts were first proposed the economy was doing fine, now not so much.

[MadsenOMC]

The war has been much discussed already, and people's views are pretty clear. I strongly disagree with McCain's positions on Iraq and foreign policy in general. However, the economy and health care are just as important to me.

When it comes to the economy, McCain would merely continue the policies of Bush. I don't think too many people are nuts about Bush's handling of the economy. As the article below suggests, McCain would be good for the rich and bad for just about everyone else. Plus, he has said numerous times that he "doesn't really understand the economy."

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jun2008/pi20080622_415010.htm

Then there's health care. Again, Obama is the better candidate. He would work harder to make sure that all Americans have access to health care. McCain has no interest in making sure that all Americans have affordable health care. His calls for tax credits and competition are not going to help average Americans.

In addition to the war, these are vital issues, and McCain simply is not going to help lower and middle class Americans if elected president.

[SpoonMan999]

When it comes to the economy, McCain would merely continue the policies of Bush.


Um, about the only things in Bush's economic plan that McCain agrees to continue are the tax cuts. McCain has said on more than one ocassion that Bush has grown the government too much and is spending too much money...

[MadsenOMC]

Um, about the only things in Bush's economic plan that McCain agrees to continue are the tax cuts. McCain has said on more than one ocassion that Bush has grown the government too much and is spending too much money...

Um, that's very easy to say. Hasn't he been a member of the Senate for many, many years? Why hasn't he tried to do something about that? Republicans are always whining about government spending, but they were in power for most of Bush's presidency and all they did was spend more & more. Hasn't McCain been part of the problem?

What do you like about McCain's economic plan?

[The Heart Collector]

Um, about the only things in Bush's economic plan that McCain agrees to continue are the tax cuts. McCain has said on more than one ocassion that Bush has grown the government too much and is spending too much money...

Every Republican that has even ran in a goddamn election since 1980 has said government spends too much and has proceeded to do jack squat about it. Including Saint Reagan.

[Homyrrh]

Every Republican that has even ran in a goddamn election since 1980 has said government spends too much and has proceeded to do jack squat about it. Including Saint Reagan.
True words rife with ubiquity and obviousness.

[MadsenOMC]

Colin Powell is going to endorse Obama. Chuck Hagel probably won't publicly endorse Obama, but he is not supporting and will not support McCain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501942.html

[Homyrrh]

Colin Powell is going to endorse Obama. Chuck Hagel probably won't publicly endorse Obama, but he is not supporting and will not support McCain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501942.html
As per your link, probably.

Black-on-black crime...

[MadsenOMC]

As per your link, probably.

Black-on-black crime...

Uh, OK. You make some strange comments sometimes.

[SpoonMan999]

Um, that's very easy to say. Hasn't he been a member of the Senate for many, many years? Why hasn't he tried to do something about that? Republicans are always whining about government spending, but they were in power for most of Bush's presidency and all they did was spend more & more. Hasn't McCain been part of the problem?

What do you like about McCain's economic plan?

Considering we have a Democrat controlled Senate...hmmm who likes big government?

Also, as I've said I'm not crazy about McCain. It's not so much what I like about his plan as it's what I don't like about Obama's plan, which I have already discussed.

[Homyrrh]

Uh, OK. You make some strange comments sometimes.
Indeed. Good for Powell. Showing some brotherly love...

[MadsenOMC]

Considering we have a Democrat controlled Senate...hmmm who likes big government?

Also, as I've said I'm not crazy about McCain. It's not so much what I like about his plan as it's what I don't like about Obama's plan, which I have already discussed.

Yeah but how long has it been controlled by the Democrats? What about the many years it was controlled by Republicans with a Republican in the White House?

Can you please remind me what you don't like about Obama's plan?

[MadsenOMC]

Indeed. Good for Powell. Showing some brotherly love...

Powell's endorsement is a pretty big deal. He is an admired and respected figure.

[SpoonMan999]

Yeah but how long has it been controlled by the Democrats? What about the many years it was controlled by Republicans with a Republican in the White House?

Can you please remind me what you don't like about Obama's plan?

I don't like that he wants to raise taxes at a time where so many are being laid off and there are many who have lost or are losing their homes. I don't like that he wants to tax the oil comapnies more when prices are sky rocketing, taxing them more will just make them charge us more. He wont support deomestic drilling even in areas that are not wild life preserves.

Right now the people, and small businesses especially, are finding it harder and harder to live their lives confortably and based on what I read about Obama's plans he's going to make it even harder. Yeah, he'll probably decrease the deficit but I couldn't care less about that. Right now, we need to help the people.

[MadsenOMC]

I don't like that he wants to raise taxes at a time where so many are being laid off and there are many who have lost or are losing their homes. I don't like that he wants to tax the oil comapnies more when prices are sky rocketing, taxing them more will just make them charge us more. He wont support deomestic drilling even in areas that are not wild life preserves.

Right now the people, and small businesses especially, are finding it harder and harder to live their lives confortably and based on what I read about Obama's plans he's going to make it even harder. Yeah, he'll probably decrease the deficit but I couldn't care less about that. Right now, we need to help the people.

You think McCain is going to help the people? He's not, unless they're already rich. I already posted links to articles explaining that McCain's plans will help the wealthy. Is that who you want the next president to help?

Obama would only raise taxes on the extremely wealthy, while easing the tax burden on the poor and middle class, the people who truly need help.

Oil companies are posting record profits right now, at a time when gas prices are at record highs. Why shouldn't they share more of that money in order to help the American people?

It is delusional to think that McCain would help average Americans more than Obama. That is simply not accurate.

[RicochetShaw]

Oil companies are posting record profits right now, at a time when gas prices are at record highs. Why shouldn't they share more of that money in order to help the American people?


Because it's their money.

[SpoonMan999]

You think McCain is going to help the people? He's not, unless they're already rich. I already posted links to articles explaining that McCain's plans will help the wealthy. Is that who you want the next president to help?

Obama would only raise taxes on the extremely wealthy, while easing the tax burden on the poor and middle class, the people who truly need help.

Oil companies are posting record profits right now, at a time when gas prices are at record highs. Why shouldn't they share more of that money in order to help the American people?

It is delusional to think that McCain would help average Americans more than Obama. That is simply not accurate.

Show me where McCain is only helping the wealthy? One of his major focuses is on small businesses and as my father is a small business owner I can tell you he is not wealthy yet will benefit greatly from McCain.

[MadsenOMC]

Show me where McCain is only helping the wealthy? One of his major focuses is on small businesses and as my father is a small business owner I can tell you he is not wealthy yet will benefit greatly from McCain.

Look at any analysis of McCain's economic plan, like the one from Business Week I posted a link to. You will find that McCain's plan predominantly helps the wealthy.

How will your father benefit greatly from McCain and be hurt by Obama?

[MadsenOMC]

Because it's their money.

Oh well in that case let's give them more tax breaks and let them keep even more money.

[RicochetShaw]

Oh well in that case let's give them more tax breaks and let them keep even more money.

If they want to help the poor, that's cool, let them. But do you think they should be forced to give money to the American people?

[MadsenOMC]

If they want to help the poor, that's cool, let them. But do you think they should be forced to give money to the American people?

They sure as hell don't deserve tax breaks, and I have no problem with them being forced to share the wealth at a time like this. I feel no sympathy for oil companies at the present time.

[SpoonMan999]

They sure as hell don't deserve tax breaks, and I have no problem with them being forced to share the wealth at a time like this. I feel no sympathy for oil companies at the present time.

The wealthy in this country provide around 70% of the country's budget in their taxes. They deserve to keep some of it, they shouldn't be punished for being succesful.

How will your father benefit greatly from McCain and be hurt by Obama?

It hasn't been outlined in an official plan but McCain has expressed his desire to give tax breaks to small businesses to help encourage more jobs.

[MadsenOMC]

It hasn't been outlined in an official plan but McCain has expressed his desire to give tax breaks to small businesses to help encourage more jobs.

Expressed a desire? That's wonderful. I'm sure expressed desires will turn this economy around in no time.

[SpoonMan999]

Expressed a desire? That's wonderful. I'm sure expressed desires will turn this economy around in no time.

OBAMA'S WHOLE CAMPAIGN IS BASED ON HOPE. Turn around and read what you're saying and apply to the candidate you support every now and then.

[MadsenOMC]

OBAMA'S WHOLE CAMPAIGN IS BASED ON HOPE. Turn around and read what you're saying and apply to the candidate you support every now and then.

Yes, Obama has no plans whatsoever. Just hope. Go to his website and under every issue it just says "Hope." His entire campaign is just hope. That is as specific as he gets.

[SpoonMan999]

Yes, Obama has no plans whatsoever. Just hope. Go to his website and under every issue it just says "Hope." His entire campaign is just hope. That is as specific as he gets.

His whole capagin platform is the hope for change, Idid not say he's just using hope for every issue. He's running his capagin on people's hope for change, which he has said this is not my interpretation. And I have no doubt he genuinely wants to change the country for the best, I personally don't see it happening.