McCain 2000 Would Not Vote For McCain 2008

[MadsenOMC]

http://thehill.com/op-eds/will-the-real-john-mccain-please-stand-up-2008-07-09.html

Will the real John McCain please stand up?

By Peter Fenn and Will Leubsdorf

John McCain made his bus famous in 2000 during his first run for president, calling it the “Straight Talk Express.” In 2008, he’s moved up to a fancy, configured jet, painting its sides with the same slogan. The trouble is, when you examine McCain’s polices and public utterances you will find very little resembling straight talk. A substantive reading of his record leads to one clear conclusion: The John McCain of 2000 would not vote for the John McCain of 2008.

The John McCain of 2000 stood up to the George W. Bush faction of the GOP, expressing and fighting for his different beliefs. Sadly, the John McCain of 2008 shamelessly panders to that Bush base, attempting to gain the support of the establishment that he previously railed against. Radical figures that McCain wouldn’t have touched in 2000 are sought after for their endorsements. Let’s be real: Would the John McCain of 2000 ever solicit the support of someone like the Revs. John Hagee or Rod Parsley? Members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group McCain vehemently decried in 2004, currently serve as top surrogates to bash fellow veterans who support Obama. Lobbyists and Bush fundraisers he denounced eight years ago are now valued donors.

McCain’s shifting of his stances isn’t just the process of evolution or changing with the times; it is a wholesale pandering, making substantive changes in a transparent effort to garner votes. McCain’s statements on any given issue are shaped by who happens to be sitting in the audience. In front of conservatives, McCain pledges to appoint radical judges like Justice Samuel Alito to the courts. But according to Politico reporter Ben Smith, while wooing former Clinton supporters, McCain suggested he would appoint more moderate judges, emphasizing his votes to confirm Clinton nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. At town halls, McCain emphasizes enforcement to deal with illegal immigration, while in closed-door meetings with Hispanic leaders he promises if elected president to overhaul federal immigration laws. This kind of blatant pandering led conservative Hispanic leader Rosanna Pulido to complain, “He’s one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he’s a different John McCain in front of Hispanics.”

On gun control, where ironically McCain has criticized Obama for shifting his position, McCain has radically altered his own to get in line with the NRA. In 1999, McCain supported banning certain assault weapons and “Saturday night specials,” as well as requiring safety locks and background checks at gun shows. He co-sponsored the McCain-Lieberman Gun Show Bill of 2003, which would have closed the gun-show loophole. Through 2004, he had a C+ rating from the NRA, who described McCain as their “Judas goat — leading the sheep to slaughter,” and as “one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.” Yet by 2007, his position had changed again. After the Virginia Tech massacre, McCain said he believed in “no gun control.” McCain’s new position as a gun rights advocate will reap great financial benefits: The NRA has pledged to spend $40 million on this year’s campaign, including at least $15 million to smear Obama.

McCain’s radically changed position on taxes is probably the most outrageous example of not adhering to straight talk. He is seeking to curry the favor of people such as Grover Norquist (one of his oldest foes in Washington), who is lucky he’s not in jail for helping launder money for Jack Abramoff. In 2001, McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against President Bush’s tax cuts, saying he could not “in good conscience” vote for them. He argued in a speech on the Senate floor that the bill gave “generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”

However, in 2006 McCain’s concerns with the Bush tax cuts has seemingly vanished, as he voted to extend tax cuts that would have expired before 2010. During the campaign, he pledged to permanently extend the rest of the cuts, leading Norquist to note that McCain had “moved to a position where we are very comfortable.’’

It’s hard to imagine someone changing positions on so many fundamental issues as McCain. The list goes on and on. McCain’s flip-flops on Social Security, oil drilling, campaign financing, the use of torture, the GI Bill, immigration, abortion, and appeasing the religious right, are serious examples of a man pandering, not progressing.

But the largest difference between the McCain of 2000 and the McCain of 2008 is the philosophical approach to the election. John McCain in 2000 ran not just to win, but to make a broader point that the system in Washington was broken and needed to be changed. Consider this quote: “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” My, how times change. The McCain of 2008 is running for one reason: to get himself elected. If that means promising to perpetuate the broken system in Washington and continue the failed policies of George W. Bush, so be it, as long as it leads to McCain winning on Election Day. This ultimate difference between the two McCains is best illustrated by early American statesman Henry Clay’s famous declaration, “I’d rather be right than be president.”

John McCain in 2000 probably would have agreed with that statement. Would the John McCain of 2008?

Judging from his ever-changing campaign positions, we doubt it.

[SpoonMan999]

Again, I'll say that people change their minds given the circumstances. That said, how do you feel about Obama changing his mind on financing his campaign? Flip-flop or not?

[MadsenOMC]

Again, I'll say that people change their minds given the circumstances. That said, how do you feel about Obama changing his mind on financing his campaign? Flip-flop or not?

Of course all candidates flip flop. I think, as this piece points out, with McCain it's more than just "changing his mind."

[SpoonMan999]

Of course all candidates flip flop. I think, as this piece points out, with McCain it's more than just "changing his mind."

I don't think it's a flip-flop if it follows a certain event or comes over a couple of years.

[MadsenOMC]

Again, they all flip flop. I am not trying to make a big deal out of flip flopping. As the article indicates, McCain 2008 bears little to no resemblance to McCain 2000. He is a completely different person/candidate.

[SpoonMan999]

Again, they all flip flop. I am not trying to make a big deal out of flip flopping. As the article indicates, McCain 2008 bears little to no resemblance to McCain 2000. He is a completely different person/candidate.

I'm just saying I think there's a diference between a change in thought and a flip-flop.

[MadsenOMC]

I'm just saying I think there's a diference between a change in thought and a flip-flop.

I agree. I also think there's a difference between those and a change in someone's overall principles/character, which I believe is what the story I posted is getting at.

[SpoonMan999]

I agree. I also think there's a difference between those and a change in someone's overall principles/character, which I believe is what the story I posted is getting at.

Which I would disagree with, I don't think his character or his core values have changed. I think what's changed is how we should fix our nation.

[MadsenOMC]

Which I would disagree with, I don't think his character or his core values have changed. I think what's changed is how we should fix our nation.

So specifically what from that story do you disagree with?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

If McCain 2000 could vote for Bush 2000, then I'm sure he could stomach voting for McCain 2008.

[SpoonMan999]

So specifically what from that story do you disagree with?

Um...

I also think there's a difference between those and a change in someone's overall principles/character, which I believe is what the story I posted is getting at.

Which I would disagree with, I don't think his character or his core values have changed. I think what's changed is how we should fix our nation.

[MadsenOMC]

Um, I said specifically. Are you unclear about the meaning of that word?

For example, McCain was disgusted with the Swift Boating of Kerry in 2004. Now some of the Swift Boaters are part of his campaign. He tells a group of conservatives that he will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. Then he tells a group of Clinton backers that he'll appoint moderate justices. He has one immigration stance when he is talking to whites, and a different one when he is speaking to Hispanics.

Are those flip flops? Lies? Is it pandering? Did he just change his beliefs?

[SpoonMan999]

The immigration thing is pandering, no argument there, and so is the Justices thing. As far as the swift boating goes I think he's just taking all the help he can get.

What I disagree with is that he's suddenly changing his character and principles. Granted, he is altering his stance on many issues but I think his core values remain the same. The core of the candidate I think is the most important thing.

[SpoonMan999]

Sounds like semantics to me.

My definition of flip-flopping versus your's is hardly debate worthy.

[MadsenOMC]

What I disagree with is that he's suddenly changing his character and principles. Granted, he is altering his stance on many issues but I think his core values remain the same.

Sounds like semantics to me.

[MadsenOMC]

So, how about that Obama on...capital punishment for child molestors? Glad somebody supports putting not only pedophiles down...but their prey as well :)

Sigh.

[Homyrrh]

So, how about that Obama on...capital punishment for child molestors? Glad somebody supports putting not only pedophiles down...but their prey as well :)

[SpoonMan999]

So, how about that Obama on...capital punishment for child molestors? Glad somebody supports putting not only pedophiles down...but their prey as well :)

Wait, what?

[Homyrrh]

Sigh.
Plagiarism!
Wait, what?
Enough to possibly kill the thread. Hopefully.

What'd you guys have for lunch? Roach coach was gross, jsut a sandwich today.

[MadsenOMC]

Plagiarism!

Enough to possibly kill the thread. Hopefully.

Someday I hope my threads are as spectacularly awesome as yours. One can dream.

[SpoonMan999]

Hospital had pasta today, not bad.

[Homyrrh]

Someday I hope my threads are as spectacularly awesome as yours. One can dream.
Or nightmare. Thread's fine, it's the daily banter that frustrates me between you, him, me, them, etc. Even my food comment was ridiculous.

[MadsenOMC]

Or nightmare. Thread's fine, it's the daily banter that frustrates me between you, him, me, them, etc. Even my food comment was ridiculous.

Well I'm certainly not trying to be frustrating. I start threads because I love politics, have strong opinions, and figure this is a great place to start conversations about issues that matter to me. I don't think, "Hmm, how can I annoy Homyrrh today?"

[SpoonMan999]

Or nightmare. Thread's fine, it's the daily banter that frustrates me between you, him, me, them, etc. Even my food comment was ridiculous.

I like to debate, if you were expecting something different in a thread related to politics I'm sorry.

[Homyrrh]

I'm just saying I think there's a diference between a change in thought and a flip-flop.

So specifically what from that story do you disagree with?

Um...

My definition of flip-flopping versus your's is hardly debate worthy.

Sounds like semantics to me.

Sigh.

Wait, what?

Hospital had pasta today, not bad.


^^^:
I like to debate, if you were expecting something different in a thread related to politics I'm sorry.

Well I'm certainly not trying to be frustrating. I start threads because I love politics, have strong opinions, and figure this is a great place to start conversations about issues that matter to me. I don't think, "Hmm, how can I annoy Homyrrh today?"

That's good to know because I was losing sleep :D

Is a great place.

[MadsenOMC]

That's good to know because I was losing sleep :D

Is a great place.

WWHD?

[Homyrrh]

WWHD?
More cowbell.

[MadsenOMC]

I pull my pants on one leg at a time, just like you Homyrrh.

[SpoonMan999]

I pull my pants on one leg at a time, just like you Homyrrh.

Well fuck you, I put my pants on both at the same time. Prop em open and then jump in.

I = superior

Seriously, let's just let this one go and pretend it never happened. The above statment is a joke but it's almost as productive as this conversation.

[shoe1985]

To get back onto topic, everyone does make changes in their lives. I don't agree with McCain's ideas, and I feel he is mainly changing his views to reach a certain group of people. From day 1, Obama has stayed by his views, and maybe a few changes here and there, but he has always pushed his idea of change.

All you can really do is go by what the candidate feels is right, and decide if that person is best for you to run this country.

[SpoonMan999]

To get back onto topic, everyone does make changes in their lives. I don't agree with McCain's ideas, and I feel he is mainly changing his views to reach a certain group of people. From day 1, Obama has stayed by his views, and maybe a few changes here and there, but he has always pushed his idea of change.

All you can really do is go by what the candidate feels is right, and decide if that person is best for you to run this country.

That's bullshit, he said he'd have us out of Iraq in 16 months but then tells Iraq officials that it's up to them. Obama is doing the exact same thing, he's leaning a little closer to the middle so more swing votes will go his way. And to say he's stayed true by sticking to his idea of change is not an argument at all...change is a very vague concept and everyone right now is offering some sort of change. It's liking saying I stayed true by sticking to my idea of breathing air.

[shoe1985]

That's bullshit, he said he'd have us out of Iraq in 16 months but then tells Iraq officials that it's up to them. Obama is doing the exact same thing, he's leaning a little closer to the middle so more swing votes will go his way. And to say he's stayed true by sticking to his idea of change is not an argument at all...change is a very vague concept and everyone right now is offering some sort of change. It's liking saying I stayed true by sticking to my idea of breathing air.

Have you been to his website? Have you read his plans of change? The answer is no, otherwise your response would be more mature, and accurate.

Many people have come out and said we must pull out of Iraq asap. The problem is that the repercussions would be extreme. Obama was speaking to the people, and giving them what they wanted. Once you actually understand why you can't pull out, you change your mind on it. He still says we must pull out. He has been one of the few people from day one that said we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, he even voted against it, what did McCain do? Voted for it? Why are we in Iraq anyways?

I will make it easy on you, http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Read that whole thing.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Check out where he stands on issues. Do you agree with them? OR


http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Do you agree with his ideas?

[jolanar]

The real problem here is... do you know which McCain you are voting for?

Is McCain of 2000 just spewing pandering nonsense to get votes to get into office in 2008 so that he can be the same person he always was... or once he gets into office will he really follow through with what he got voted on.

I think against any other opponent McCain would not be flip flopping on all these issues because the middle ground would have won him the election... against any other opponent. But McCain knows damn well that Obama trumps him in the middle ground so he is swerving to the right to stay in the race.

[The Heart Collector]

I don't think it's a flip-flop if it follows a certain event or comes over a couple of years.

Anyone who changes their mind to being more pro-Bush policies after the eight years of George Bush as President is a moron, and mentally unfit for the presidency. If this is your defense of John McCain, then John McCain should be beaten to death with a bag of potatoes.

[Cop No. 633]

McCain Issues Top Ten Funniest Ways to Kill Iranians
By Andy Borowitz

Citing what he called the "overwhelmingly positive response to my jokes about killing Iranians," presumptive G.O.P. presidential nominee John McCain issued today a list of his favorite humorous remarks on the subject.

Titled "John McCain's Top Ten Funniest Ways to Kill Iranians," the list was published on his official campaign website at www.JohnMcCain.com/funnywaystokilliranians.

Speaking in a video on the site, a smiling Sen. McCain says, "My friends, in these trying times in which we live, there's one thing all Americans can agree on: killing Iranians is hilarious."

Sen. McCain, who first joked about killing Iranians months ago by singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' hit "Barbara Ann" and who yesterday commented that the U.S. could kill Iranians with cigarettes, was apparently "just warming up," one aide said today.

"Anyone who has enjoyed Sen. McCain's side-splitting jokes about killing Iranians will be blown away by this list," the aide said. "He's in fine form."

Sen. McCain's list of funny ways to kill Iranians ranges from the caustic -- "Send Iran lead-based hookah pipes from China" -- to the whimsical -- "Tell Christie Brinkley that Iran has been cheating on her."

The list ends with what Sen. McCain dubs the number one funniest way to kill Iranians: "Vote for me."

~ Huffington Post

:)

[shoe1985]

The link doesn't work now, wonder why? These are reasons you can't vote for someone like McCain. Why would you come out saying we should kill someone? Do people really think like that?

[MadsenOMC]

Where's the supposedly liberal media when you need them? All they can talk about is Jackson's Obama comment. Meanwhile, stories of actual importance (or at least more importance than the Jackson/Obama one) are being ignored or close to it.

[Homyrrh]

Heh, at this point, in light of some pretty legit denouncements on/for both sides, it seems wise to just wait the pandering and flopping out and make a decision come November. Don't even have to watch the news until like a week before and you'll be better off.

[Homyrrh]

And we don't need to kill all the Iranians. Just a certain few.

[SpoonMan999]

Have you been to his website? Have you read his plans of change? The answer is no, otherwise your response would be more mature, and accurate.

Many people have come out and said we must pull out of Iraq asap. The problem is that the repercussions would be extreme. Obama was speaking to the people, and giving them what they wanted. Once you actually understand why you can't pull out, you change your mind on it. He still says we must pull out. He has been one of the few people from day one that said we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, he even voted against it, what did McCain do? Voted for it? Why are we in Iraq anyways?

I will make it easy on you, http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Read that whole thing.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Check out where he stands on issues. Do you agree with them? OR


http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Do you agree with his ideas?

It's clear who I agree with. And again, he said 16 months that was his promise and then he told Iraq it's up to them what happens and then he comes right back to the public saying 16 months. You pull the Iraq thing like that's going to change my opinion...I agree with McCain we should stay and fix the mess Bush made.

Anyone who changes their mind to being more pro-Bush policies after the eight years of George Bush as President is a moron, and mentally unfit for the presidency. If this is your defense of John McCain, then John McCain should be beaten to death with a bag of potatoes.

Other than tax cuts and the war show me where they're the same? Those are really the only two major issues they are on the same page on.

[MadsenOMC]

Other than tax cuts and the war show me where they're the same? Those are really the only two major issues they are on the same page on.

Wrong. Health care, judicial appointments, abortion, immigration, wiretaps. They are on the same page on many major issues.

[Homyrrh]

Wrong. Health care, judicial appointments, abortion, immigration, wiretaps. They are on the same page on many major issues.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v480/punkboi/Parno2/mace_palps_duel.jpg

[MadsenOMC]

I agree with McCain we should stay and fix the mess Bush made.

McCain to the Council on Foreign Relations:

If an elected government of Iraq asked us to leave, "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave."

They have demanded a withdrawal timetable, which is what Obama is calling for. Do we have to honor their wishes?

[Cop No. 633]

Are you mad?! Of course not. If there's anything we learned from Vietnam, it's that we don't leave until they're tearing down our embassy and trying to kill the politicians stationed out there.

If we leave because we listened to the Iraqi government, the terrorists would be winning. As soon as we left, all the secret hidden Iranian cells in Iraq would celebrate and take out their WMD's and then we'd be in a cluster fuck.

[SpoonMan999]

McCain to the Council on Foreign Relations:

If an elected government of Iraq asked us to leave, "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave."

They have demanded a withdrawal timetable, which is what Obama is calling for. Do we have to honor their wishes?

We absolutely should, but we should make sure the government isn't going to collapse as soon as we do. I don't think Obama should be throwing out a specific time until we've had a chance to work with the Iraqi government on a time table and had enough time to look into it. McCain would like to stay till it's done, but as he mentioned if they ask us to leave then we need to leave.

[MadsenOMC]

They have asked for a withdrawal timetable. They do want us to leave. Isn't McCain against a timetable?

What is "done" anyway? Who defines it and how? What if McCain's done isn't the same as the Iraqi government's?

[SpoonMan999]

McCain wants to stay but will leave when asked. The Iraqi government wants a time table but this doesn't mean they want us gone right away it just means they want us to start planning an exit. And by done I mean the government is stable and the country is able to get along on it's own.

[MadsenOMC]

McCain wants to stay but will leave when asked. The Iraqi government wants a time table but this doesn't mean they want us gone right away it just means they want us to start planning an exit. And by done I mean the government is stable and the country is able to get along on it's own.

Will he leave when asked? In the past he said he would, but is that still true today?

[MadsenOMC]

You haven't? What about his infamous we'll stay for a hundred years comment? I don't see any reason to believe that he'd leave even if asked. I certainly don't trust him on the issue either.

[SpoonMan999]

Will he leave when asked? In the past he said he would, but is that still true today?

I've not heard him say otherwise.

[SpoonMan999]

You haven't? What about his infamous we'll stay for a hundred years comment? I don't see any reason to believe that he'd leave even if asked. I certainly don't trust him on the issue either.

I don't trust Obama with any of the issues, he hasn't proven himself trustworthy or capable in any of the subjects he's pushing.

And I think he meant he'd stay 100 years if that's how long it took to get the job done and he had his way. Fortunately, he understand he can't have everything he wants and he has to give the people what they want.

[Scarfather]

The following statement is by a McCain supporter:

I don't trust Obama with any of the issues, he hasn't proven himself trustworthy or capable in any of the subjects he's pushing.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHA

[MadsenOMC]

I don't trust Obama with any of the issues, he hasn't proven himself trustworthy or capable in any of the subjects he's pushing.

Fortunately, he understand he can't have everything he wants and he has to give the people what they want.

Oh he does does he. Excuse me if I think that is one massive crock of shit.

If you think McCain is more trustworthy than Obama, despite telling conservatives one thing and moderates another, you have truly been drinking too much of the kool-aid and are totally unable to examine him objectively.

[SpoonMan999]

Oh he does does he. Excuse me if I think that is one massive crock of shit.

If you think McCain is more trustworthy than Obama, despite telling conservatives one thing and moderates another, you have truly been drinking too much of the kool-aid and are totally unable to examine him objectively.

I think he's far more trustworthy than Obama, especialy with Obama completely turning his back on the way he agreed they'd finance the campaign. Obama's experience as a community organizer does not make me confident in his ability to lead and nor does it make him trustworthy. He hasn't done much and if he becomes president I think the lack of experience will show. Granted, he could grow into the role and become a great president once he has the hang of it but our economy, the oil prices, and the war cannot wait that long to be properly addressed.

And Scar, seriously, this forum's rules dictate that we try to be mature in here or the forum gets closed so pointing my statment and laughing at me is a step down the road to closure. Also, not pointing out any error in the statment just says that you really have nothing to say unless it's along the lines of "lol Republican." What you guys have to realise is not everyone thinks like you and there are people who find McCain more trustworthy and wouldn't trust Obama as far as we could throw him. Granted, I don't truly trust any politician and it's not realy that I think Obama is flat out lying but instead he's hoping he'll be able to do all of this. Frankly, I think he wont accomplish half of it.

[MadsenOMC]

I think he's far more trustworthy than Obama, especialy with Obama completely turning his back on the way he agreed they'd finance the campaign. Obama's experience as a community organizer does not make me confident in his ability to lead and nor does it make him trustworthy. He hasn't done much and if he becomes president I think the lack of experience will show. Granted, he could grow into the role and become a great president once he has the hang of it but our economy, the oil prices, and the war cannot wait that long to be properly addressed.

And Scar, seriously, this forum's rules dictates that we try to be mature in here or the forum gets closed so pointing my statment and laughing at me is a step down the road to closure. Also, not pointing out any error in the statment just says that you really have nothing to say unless it's along the lines of "lol Republican." What you guys have to realise is not everyone thinks like you and there are people who find McCain more trustworthy and wouldn't trust Obama as far as we could throw him. Granted, I don't truly trust any politician and it's not realy that I think Obama is flat out lying but instead he's hoping he'll be able to do all of this. Frankly, I think he wont accomplish half of it.

Spoon, I do realize that not everyone loves Obama. Hell, I don't even love him. Every politician is flawed in one way or another.

That being said, it is really hard to take you seriously when you say McCain is far more trustworthy than Obama (and only list one issue that makes you believe this). I have posted articles listing in detail not just McCain's flip-flops and changes (which are normal) but the way he says one thing to one group of people (conservatives) and the exact opposite to another group of people (moderates). This has happened numerous times. Now, he can't believe both, so obviously he is flat-out lying to one of the groups of people. You are ignoring reality, and I don't know if that is intentional or not. It is going to make people skeptical of your opinion. It makes me think you are totally blind to McCain's faults and simply can't examine him objectively at all. It's not a matter of opinion, of liking one candidate more than the other. It is a matter of facts. The fact is, McCain has repeatedly told different groups of people different things about the same issue. That is not something a trustworthy person does.

[SpoonMan999]

Spoon, I do realize that not everyone loves Obama. Hell, I don't even love him. Every politician is flawed in one way or another.

That being said, it is really hard to take you seriously when you say McCain is far more trustworthy than Obama (and only list one issue that makes you believe this). I have posted articles listing in detail not just McCain's flip-flops and changes (which are normal) but the way he says one thing to one group of people (conservatives) and the exact opposite to another group of people (moderates). This has happened numerous times. Now, he can't believe both, so obviously he is flat-out lying to one of the groups of people. You are ignoring reality, and I don't know if that is intentional or not. It is going to make people skeptical of your opinion. It makes me think you are totally blind to McCain's faults and simply can't examine him objectively at all. It's not a matter of opinion, of liking one candidate more than the other. It is a matter of facts. The fact is, McCain has repeatedly told different groups of people different things about the same issue. That is not something a trustworthy person does.

Again, I think neither of them is trustworthy in the end. I simply trust McCain to stick to his core values and major issues than I do Obama. McCain has a lot of experience in Washington where Obama has almost none. I think in the end I'm not trying to say McCain doesn't lie and Obama does all the time or anything like that. What I'm trying to say is I don't trust Obama to run our country.

[Jon Lyrik]

Holy shit, did you just equate being in Washington for "a long time" being equivalent to "sticking to your values"? Politicians are whores, dude.

[SpoonMan999]

Holy shit, did you just equate being in Washington for "a long time" being equivalent to "sticking to your values"? Politicians are whores, dude.

No, I was talking about his ability and experience. Kind of switched topic a little but I still believe his core values are still what they were. And I know politicians suck, as I said I don't trust either of them really.

[shoe1985]

Experience means so little these days. If experience meant so much, we would not being closing in on a recession.

Like McCain says we need to drill for more oil, well why are oil companies not drilling where they are allowed too? They have a lot of places in the USA where they can drill, does McCain not know this?

McCain has been changing his stances on issues since the start. He began as the renegade against Bush, now he is agreeing with what most of Bus agrees with. He is trying to appeal to the Republicans now. I don't think you should have to change your views to please anyone. You stand by what you believe in for a reason, it makes you unique.

Spoon, do you think Bush is doing a good job? Do you think our country has been lead well these last 8 years?

I am not saying McCain and Bush are the same, but McCain has voted for the majority of things Bush has wanted. I look at the voting records, I agree with Obama more than McCain on what has been voted on.

McCain keeps changing his mind too much for me, and is like John Kerry was during the 04 election.

We all vote for the person we feel will help us the best. McCain has come out and said he doesn't know much about the economy. Then he goes and gets a guy who does, and the guy pretty much bashes this country.

I can bash McCain over and over again because it is too easy. It is like Bush. With Obama, I can find little things here and there, but nothing like McCain.

If we are going to be a Super Power in the coming years, we need to make some drastic changes. War is not the answer. We need to meet with leaders of other countries, and work together. War does nothing but increase problems for everyone.

[SpoonMan999]

Experience means so little these days. If experience meant so much, we would not being closing in on a recession.

Like McCain says we need to drill for more oil, well why are oil companies not drilling where they are allowed too? They have a lot of places in the USA where they can drill, does McCain not know this?

McCain has been changing his stances on issues since the start. He began as the renegade against Bush, now he is agreeing with what most of Bus agrees with. He is trying to appeal to the Republicans now. I don't think you should have to change your views to please anyone. You stand by what you believe in for a reason, it makes you unique.

Spoon, do you think Bush is doing a good job? Do you think our country has been lead well these last 8 years?

I am not saying McCain and Bush are the same, but McCain has voted for the majority of things Bush has wanted. I look at the voting records, I agree with Obama more than McCain on what has been voted on.

McCain keeps changing his mind too much for me, and is like John Kerry was during the 04 election.

We all vote for the person we feel will help us the best. McCain has come out and said he doesn't know much about the economy. Then he goes and gets a guy who does, and the guy pretty much bashes this country.

I can bash McCain over and over again because it is too easy. It is like Bush. With Obama, I can find little things here and there, but nothing like McCain.

If we are going to be a Super Power in the coming years, we need to make some drastic changes. War is not the answer. We need to meet with leaders of other countries, and work together. War does nothing but increase problems for everyone.

Bashing Obama isn't as hard as you think, though I try to avoid simply bashing and just stick to observations.

McCain is getting closer to Bush to win over Republicans? That's...wow that's just...actually it's the complete opposite of what he's doing. He's been showing support for the president to win over the select few who still like Bush but the fact is that he, and Obama is doing the exact same thing, is trying to win over the centrists. However, McCain is also trying to win the Conservatives, not because we're leaning toward Obama but because we don't want either of them.

There are places to drill in the US and most of them are being drilled and the ones that aren't, from my knowledge at least so correct me if I'm wrong, are not very rich. The places we need to be drilling are off the coast of California, the coast of Florida, and of course Alaska. Alaska should of course be heavily regulated and monitored to ensure environmental safety, or the EPA will flip. But, we also need to build new refineries and start looking into more nuclear power so we can get out of this crisis and focus more on alternate fuels.

Also, I've made it clear repeatedly that I don't approve of many things Bush has done.

[Scarfather]

And Scar, seriously, this forum's rules dictate that we try to be mature in here or the forum gets closed so pointing my statment and laughing at me is a step down the road to closure. Also, not pointing out any error in the statment just says that you really have nothing to say unless it's along the lines of "lol Republican." What you guys have to realise is not everyone thinks like you and there are people who find McCain more trustworthy and wouldn't trust Obama as far as we could throw him. Granted, I don't truly trust any politician and it's not realy that I think Obama is flat out lying but instead he's hoping he'll be able to do all of this. Frankly, I think he wont accomplish half of it.

I don't know your values, but if you're a Republican, you probably consider yourself to be conservative.

Listen, when it comes to government, I'm pretty conservative, which is why I'm totally against the modern Republican party. These people are not conservative, they're big government, authoritarian, jingoist slimeballs who truly go entirely against everything that could ever be considered conservative.

I'm someone who is most certainly not a party man, like many Americans, who vote for their party no matter what. I vote for whoever seems that they would be best for the country in the long run.

I'm once again fucked this election, because neither Obama nor McCain represent my hippy dippy idealism, but even if he's against my conservative leanings, I'd still vote for Obama because he's the lesser of two douchebags.

[countchocula]

McCain is a spineless fossil who is projecting too many images at once. He's clueless. Yeah, he's an experienced veteran, but so are many other morons in Washington. It's obvious that he would further distance America from the rest of the world. If Iraq wants a timetable, then McCain should realize that we need to plan an evacuation NOW. We need to concentrate elsewhere if we are serious about protecting this country. Osama Bin Ladin has been planning something this entire time, but hey, at least that Saddam statue isn't taunting us anymore!

Unfortunately, this is a stupid country. We won't vote for a minority with a creepy name. Experience...shit. I'm wondering how Dubya's experience as the owner of a baseball team factored into his appeal.

[Cop No. 633]

That's one thing that bothers me about this election. It's all about "experience" but when Bush ran the only experience he had were owning a baseball team, being a failed investor in his own oil drilling business, a Governor of Texas, and an ex-alcoholic and coke head (up to his late 30's... not just some college kid who messed around with drugs).

And yet TONS of idiots (I'm sorry, if you voted for Dubya, you were an idiot. I wasn't even old enough to vote and I knew it was the worst decision ever) voted for him because he was "likable." I guess if being a moron who can't construct proper sentences, makes up words, is condescending towards the average American is "likable" they ought to change the definition in the dictionary.

So nobody used that argument against Bush and yet he still is our fuck up. Our worst Presidential blemish in the history of our country. I guess it's okay because he "found Jesus."

I just find this "experience" issue to heavily one sided on the side of the Republicans. What I hate most about these right wing nut jobs is that they constantly change their goal posts and nobody in the media ever calls them out on it.

When Cheney denies having ever said something, why don't they have the taped evidence with them so they can play it back in his face? It's so simple, even a child could understand.

But no, we're living in Alternate America where everything has gone down the drain since the 2000 election was stolen.

[SpoonMan999]

I don't know your values, but if you're a Republican, you probably consider yourself to be conservative.

Listen, when it comes to government, I'm pretty conservative, which is why I'm totally against the modern Republican party. These people are not conservative, they're big government, authoritarian, jingoist slimeballs who truly go entirely against everything that could ever be considered conservative.

I'm someone who is most certainly not a party man, like many Americans, who vote for their party no matter what. I vote for whoever seems that they would be best for the country in the long run.

I'm once again fucked this election, because neither Obama nor McCain represent my hippy dippy idealism, but even if he's against my conservative leanings, I'd still vote for Obama because he's the lesser of two douchebags.

I am a Conservative, not a Republican. I am registered as a Republican but that was back when Bush convinced me he would hold Conservative ideals and I had no idea it was a flat out lie. Sorry, but Obama is almost the complete polar opposite of my Conservative ideals. Right now, we need to reduce the government and get businesses to expand in order to save our economy.

McCain is a spineless fossil who is projecting too many images at once. He's clueless. Yeah, he's an experienced veteran, but so are many other morons in Washington. It's obvious that he would further distance America from the rest of the world. If Iraq wants a timetable, then McCain should realize that we need to plan an evacuation NOW. We need to concentrate elsewhere if we are serious about protecting this country. Osama Bin Ladin has been planning something this entire time, but hey, at least that Saddam statue isn't taunting us anymore!

Unfortunately, this is a stupid country. We won't vote for a minority with a creepy name. Experience...shit. I'm wondering how Dubya's experience as the owner of a baseball team factored into his appeal.

Spineless is hardly a word I'd use to describe a man who went through what he did.

With Bush's poor experiences he still had more than Obama does, being a community organizer does not impress me at all.

That's one thing that bothers me about this election. It's all about "experience" but when Bush ran the only experience he had were owning a baseball team, being a failed investor in his own oil drilling business, a Governor of Texas, and an ex-alcoholic and coke head (up to his late 30's... not just some college kid who messed around with drugs).

And yet TONS of idiots (I'm sorry, if you voted for Dubya, you were an idiot. I wasn't even old enough to vote and I knew it was the worst decision ever) voted for him because he was "likable." I guess if being a moron who can't construct proper sentences, makes up words, is condescending towards the average American is "likable" they ought to change the definition in the dictionary.

So nobody used that argument against Bush and yet he still is our fuck up. Our worst Presidential blemish in the history of our country. I guess it's okay because he "found Jesus."

I just find this "experience" issue to heavily one sided on the side of the Republicans. What I hate most about these right wing nut jobs is that they constantly change their goal posts and nobody in the media ever calls them out on it.

When Cheney denies having ever said something, why don't they have the taped evidence with them so they can play it back in his face? It's so simple, even a child could understand.

But no, we're living in Alternate America where everything has gone down the drain since the 2000 election was stolen.

To call me an idiot because I hated him less than John Kerry in the last election is uncalled for. I didn't find either of them likable, I just went with the lesser of two evils from what I saw. Oh, and the 2000 election wasn't stolen, get over it. I'd like to think the 2000 election went the way it did because people were tired from all the bull shit from Clinton...but alas, there are those who worship that piece of shit (I try to shy away from personal insults toward a politician I've never met but I have no respect for cheaters).

[shoe1985]

Actually Spoon, the people voted for Gore, he did have the majority. People had money, they were doing well. Of course Congress and he worked together, and they were basically two different parties. One big reason the country is so insane right now is that Bush and the current Congress don't want to work together. It is about one upping the other. Nothing will ever get done with things running like that.

I don't respect Clinton cheating on his wife, but that is his personal life. How was the country being run? Were your pockets full of money like most people? How are those same pockets now? Empty?

I have no problem that you agree with McCain's ideas, but which McCain ideas? He has been changing his views so much these last few months, I am not sure what he is for or against. Like I said before, you stick by your views, and don't change unless you truly feel that is the right thing to do.

We are a country that needs to change, or we will fall behind even worse. People need to think about the future, and be willing to give up on certain things for progress.

[Scarfather]

I am a Conservative, not a Republican. I am registered as a Republican but that was back when Bush convinced me he would hold Conservative ideals and I had no idea it was a flat out lie. Sorry, but Obama is almost the complete polar opposite of my Conservative ideals. Right now, we need to reduce the government and get businesses to expand in order to save our economy.


No shit, and if you trust McCain to do this, then you'll be back here in 2012 talking about how he convinced you he would hold Conservative ideals and how you had no idea it was a flat out a lie. McCain is of the same stock as George W. Bush, and you're voting for nothing but a few extra feet of America's grave.

[countchocula]

Obama wasn't just a "community organizer." He was a constitutional lawyer for most of the 90's, and he was also a law professor. McCain is spineless because he is painting himself as a left-leaning conservative and a right-leaning liberal. He adopts bellicose views when he is trying to impress bible thumpers, yet he turns into a Bush-detracting "maverick" whenever he shows up on The Daily Show. Obviously, his past is honorable, but "I'm good at being held hostage" is not a platform.

[Cop No. 633]

To call me an idiot because I hated him less than John Kerry in the last election is uncalled for. I didn't find either of them likable, I just went with the lesser of two evils from what I saw. Oh, and the 2000 election wasn't stolen, get over it. I'd like to think the 2000 election went the way it did because people were tired from all the bull shit from Clinton...but alas, there are those who worship that piece of shit (I try to shy away from personal insults toward a politician I've never met but I have no respect for cheaters).

Whatever. Look at where this country is now. If you think the President's administration had nothing to do with the shape this country is in (it's not "mental" recession... Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac just went from $60 a share to $5... the only mortgage firms that were backed by the government. Think about that and how it will affect everybody). So yes, you were stupid for voting for Bush. I'm sorry, that's one thing that's not debatable. NOT debatable.

The least people like you can do is admit you made a mistake because you stuck to your core values which Bush never had done in his political life. He has contempt for you as much as me. It doesn't matter what "party" you're with. As long as you're in the lower-middle class or in the working class, Bush doesn't give a fuck about us or the shape the country will be in after he's raped it.

You clearly are a person that takes politicians and this government at face value. If they say they say they're "with your values" and haven't committed any "crimes" you'll take them at their word when it's clearly obvious this has been the most openly corrupt administration in our country's history. Please, start reading some history books man. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is a great place to start with.


I'd also like to point out big business has already expanded beyond anybody's control. Big business is the reason for our recession! Because he haven't regulated business practices since the 80's and then stupidly signed NAFTA, we have lost tons of jobs and we don't produce any goods in our country. We're worthless because we have to get everything imported to us. Cars, clothes, technology... the only thing we do produce is food and we fuck that up every change we get by giving cows hormones to produce more milk even though they already make plenty of milk on their own. We're poisoning ourselves by having stopped growing food through the natural process. Remember last month when there was the tomato scare? It's also why the mortgage industry has collapsed like never before. The government stopped regulating it and mortgage companies were giving out loans on purpose to people who couldn't pay it off. I know because I work in that field and luckily I work with people who have integrity. So all your talk about "expanding" business is nonsense. We've let it grow as much as it could and now we're seeing that these "American" corporations aren't trying to help this country at all. They haven't created jobs for our society. They've exported them so they can get slave labor and we can't do anything because technically it's not in our jurisdiction.

[shoe1985]

Good post CosmicPuppet. I have to point out one thing though, Clinton did sign the NAFTA papers, not Bush. His father was the person behind getting NAFTA running though. Clinton saw NAFTA as a way for us to come together with other countries that were struggling, well mainly Mexico, Canada has always been fine. The problems didn't arise until Bush came into office and let Big Business run everything without regulations, as you mentioned. The only way to make NAFTA work is that those countries must follow the same laws as ours. Same minimum wage, same worker rights, and so on. This will never happen because big business has too much control now.

[SpoonMan999]

Whatever. Look at where this country is now. If you think the President's administration had nothing to do with the shape this country is in (it's not "mental" recession... Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac just went from $60 a share to $5... the only mortgage firms that were backed by the government. Think about that and how it will affect everybody). So yes, you were stupid for voting for Bush. I'm sorry, that's one thing that's not debatable. NOT debatable.

The least people like you can do is admit you made a mistake because you stuck to your core values which Bush never had done in his political life. He has contempt for you as much as me. It doesn't matter what "party" you're with. As long as you're in the lower-middle class or in the working class, Bush doesn't give a fuck about us or the shape the country will be in after he's raped it.

You clearly are a person that takes politicians and this government at face value. If they say they say they're "with your values" and haven't committed any "crimes" you'll take them at their word when it's clearly obvious this has been the most openly corrupt administration in our country's history. Please, start reading some history books man. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States is a great place to start with.


I'd also like to point out big business has already expanded beyond anybody's control. Big business is the reason for our recession! Because he haven't regulated business practices since the 80's and then stupidly signed NAFTA, we have lost tons of jobs and we don't produce any goods in our country. We're worthless because we have to get everything imported to us. Cars, clothes, technology... the only thing we do produce is food and we fuck that up every change we get by giving cows hormones to produce more milk even though they already make plenty of milk on their own. We're poisoning ourselves by having stopped growing food through the natural process. Remember last month when there was the tomato scare? It's also why the mortgage industry has collapsed like never before. The government stopped regulating it and mortgage companies were giving out loans on purpose to people who couldn't pay it off. I know because I work in that field and luckily I work with people who have integrity. So all your talk about "expanding" business is nonsense. We've let it grow as much as it could and now we're seeing that these "American" corporations aren't trying to help this country at all. They haven't created jobs for our society. They've exported them so they can get slave labor and we can't do anything because technically it's not in our jurisdiction.

I was not stupid for voting for him. Thinking a candidate might be at least somewhat similar to how he presents himself or thinking he may be somewhat like his father was is not stupid, it's in fact a very common way of thinking. Bush did a 180 on us and said "Fuck your conservative values I'm going to grow the government to massive proportions and spend all your money!"

And you talk about losing all these jobs yet the unemployment rate is very low right now.

Obama wasn't just a "community organizer." He was a constitutional lawyer for most of the 90's, and he was also a law professor. McCain is spineless because he is painting himself as a left-leaning conservative and a right-leaning liberal. He adopts bellicose views when he is trying to impress bible thumpers, yet he turns into a Bush-detracting "maverick" whenever he shows up on The Daily Show. Obviously, his past is honorable, but "I'm good at being held hostage" is not a platform.

I meant that was his only leadership experience. Being a lawyer makes you the scum of the earth not presidential material, though many presidents were lawyers so who knows.

No shit, and if you trust McCain to do this, then you'll be back here in 2012 talking about how he convinced you he would hold Conservative ideals and how you had no idea it was a flat out a lie. McCain is of the same stock as George W. Bush, and you're voting for nothing but a few extra feet of America's grave.

McCain has made it very clear with his policies that he wont be upholding Conservative values. However, I think his stances on drilling, the economy, and Iraq are the right things to do and for me these are the three biggest issues.

[MadsenOMC]

McCain has made it very clear with his policies that he wont be upholding Conservative values. However, I think his stances on drilling, the economy, and Iraq are the right things to do and for me these are the three biggest issues.

What do you mean he won't be upholding conservative values?

McCain is a disaster on the economy. It is hysterical that you believe a candidate who stated more than once that he doesn't understand the economy is good on that issue. Unless you are already filthy rich, his economic policies are atrocious. Are you filthy rich?

[countchocula]

McCain wants to lower taxes without getting rid of the national debt, which is ludicrous. I once read an interview with him where he was asked a question, and he didn't know what his opinion was. He told one of his advisors to check his voting record (I believe the issue in question was abstinence programs). He doesn't even know what his own views are. The guy's a joke.

No, I don't have a link. This was something I read online over a year ago.

[Cop No. 633]

Good post CosmicPuppet. I have to point out one thing though, Clinton did sign the NAFTA papers, not Bush. His father was the person behind getting NAFTA running though. Clinton saw NAFTA as a way for us to come together with other countries that were struggling, well mainly Mexico, Canada has always been fine. The problems didn't arise until Bush came into office and let Big Business run everything without regulations, as you mentioned. The only way to make NAFTA work is that those countries must follow the same laws as ours. Same minimum wage, same worker rights, and so on. This will never happen because big business has too much control now.

I know Clinton did sign the bill, but it was a bill in the making for a number of years. It had its roots in the secret wars waged by the CIA in Latin America. The main goal was to take away tariffs for importing goods into our country. That is a big problem right there because a good chunk of revenue used to be made from tariffs so if you take them out of the equation, you have to replace it, which is something big businesses haven't done. Like you said, we've given them too much power. If they're not willing to pay taxes on imports and they get an even bigger tax cut, than how do we know they're investing their money in our country? A lot of these CEOs have bank accounts in Europe. Right now, an unspoken piece of news is that a lot of people with money are transferring their funds to Euro's because of our economy. They're jumping ship at this point. So all this talk about big business helping America is nonsense they've brainwashed people with. I'm not a party believer... I believe in my own politics. I think Clinton didn't take into account what he got this country into when he signed that bill. It was a mistake. Even Hillary admitted this on the campaign trail despite the fact she was all for it when it passed.

That's the biggest problem I noticed with people today. They take politicians and corporate lobbyists' word that they mean what they say when it's the opposite.

And Spoonman, you clearly missed the biggest point I made in my post, but I can't blame you. I wasn't even discussing the unemployment rate, I was discussing the fact that we don't have jobs in the U.S. that create GOODS to boost our economy. We don't make cars, TV's, clothes, basic materials a society needs/buys on a daily basis. Because we don't produce goods, we can have all the jobs we want but it still won't help our dollar and economy. We need to start making things on our own and stop relying on other countries to make it for us. It's that simple. If we did that and actually paid workers what they're worth as opposed to sending the work overseas and paying slave wages, we would see a dramatic boost in our economy. This goes back to NAFTA...

[The Heart Collector]

Being a lawyer makes you the scum of the earth not presidential material, though many presidents were lawyers so who knows.

What exactly is the point of making this absurd, ridiculously broad blanket statement?


Should I counter with the equally preposterous "all American soldiers and veterans, including McCain, are imperialist dog shit and unfit to be President"?

[The Heart Collector]

And Spoonman, you clearly missed the biggest point I made in my post, but I can't blame you. I wasn't even discussing the unemployment rate, I was discussing the fact that we don't have jobs in the U.S. that create GOODS to boost our economy. We don't make cars, TV's, clothes, basic materials a society needs/buys on a daily basis. Because we don't produce goods, we can have all the jobs we want but it still won't help our dollar and economy. We need to start making things on our own and stop relying on other countries to make it for us. It's that simple. If we did that and actually paid workers what they're worth as opposed to sending the work overseas and paying slave wages, we would see a dramatic boost in our economy. This goes back to NAFTA...

Not to defend Spoonman or anything, but this is a bit anti-trade / nationalist and not necessarily sound. America isn't dying because it doesn't make tvs anymore.

[shoe1985]

And you talk about losing all these jobs yet the unemployment rate is very low right now.

I hate when people discuss the unemployment rate. You really can't measure it. Many people have given up on finding jobs, or their unemployment benefits run out. There are so many other problems with the whole unemployment rating. We are starting to see a lot of layoffs now, and will continue to occur. I know mortgage companies in my area have begun layoffs because nobody is buying homes. We had an airport lay off around 1,000 jobs because nobody is flying. A call center was closed to go to India, around 100 jobs lost.

Not to defend Spoonman or anything, but this is a bit anti-trade / nationalist and not necessarily sound. America isn't dying because it doesn't make tvs anymore.

I may sound anti-trade too, but America is struggling because we do make things. It isn't just that, but outsourcing a lot of the manufacturing jobs has not done any good for this country. Like the jobs I mentioned above, many manufacturing jobs have been outsourced causing many people to lose their jobs in my area. We used to be a striving town with many decent paying jobs. Thanks in part to NAFTA, we have seen our growth turn into people struggling to stay above the poverty line. It isn't just my area, but many locations. If we are going to deal with other countries, we need the same laws. Their minimum wage needs to be the same as ours. Their workers' rights should be the same as ours. It only makes things fair for everyone.

I have seen companies outsource saying it is cheaper to make, but their prices go up. If they are increasing their profit margin by sending the job to say Mexico, why do they need to increase the price of the product?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for making money. I have always felt employers need to remember that they are working to help provide jobs and a product to the community they are in. They should love their jobs. Money should be an added incentive for their work. Instead, it is all about making a lot of money and not caring who gets hurt in the process.

[mel1ssa]

Whatever. Look at where this country is now. If you think the President's administration had nothing to do with the shape this country is in (it's not "mental" recession... Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac just went from $60 a share to $5... the only mortgage firms that were backed by the government. Think about that and how it will affect everybody). So yes, you were stupid for voting for Bush. I'm sorry, that's one thing that's not debatable. NOT debatable.

in this case, the judgment of stupidity is seen through the lense of hindsight.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

The only thing I will give McCain is that he is a slightly more decent candidate than Bush, at least in the sense that he will occasionally show his opponent some sign of respect. Other than that, he is not a political maverick minus a few instances of bipartisanship. Let's face it, McCain-Feingold was not a glorious piece of legislation. There were already finance laws in place.

The last Republican candidate who was truly a moderate was Bob Dole, who was actually seen as an extremist back in the old days. I'll take Obama's cuddly, Charmin-ultra version of liberalism over McCain's phony Boy Scout schtick any day.

Then again, I am of the belief that anyone who supported Bush in either 2000 or 2004 (especially 2004), regardless of overall political ideology, should be immediately disqualified from holding a major public office. I mean, he should've at least stayed home, in my egregiously honest view.

[Cop No. 633]

in this case, the judgment of stupidity is seen through the lense of hindsight.

Then I must be Nostradamus because I saw that train wreck happening before it happened. If people were better informed, they wouldn't be so rash to vote for a candidate because he appeared to be a decent average C-student who wouldn't ever have been considered a candidate if not for his daddy's name. Many people didn't need hindsight to see what a big mistake this country made.

[Jon Lyrik]

Hey, Frank Zappa was a C-student, and he was no idiot. He'd have gotten my vote easily. Dubya has proven himself otherwise.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

A C- at Yale isn't that bad. The real question is how the hell did Bush manage to land a C- at Yale?

[Cop No. 633]

His family's money.

I wasn't trying to imply that all C-average people are dumb. The key word in my post was "appeared to be." On paper, it says he had a C-average, but I can construct better sentences than he ever could and he's the fucking President. You know how pitiful it is to say that?

[SpoonMan999]

What do you mean he won't be upholding conservative values?

McCain is a disaster on the economy. It is hysterical that you believe a candidate who stated more than once that he doesn't understand the economy is good on that issue. Unless you are already filthy rich, his economic policies are atrocious. Are you filthy rich?

I'm not filthy rich, and again I don't think his policies are the best just better. Stop acting like I'm a die-hard McCain fan.

McCain wants to lower taxes without getting rid of the national debt, which is ludicrous. I once read an interview with him where he was asked a question, and he didn't know what his opinion was. He told one of his advisors to check his voting record (I believe the issue in question was abstinence programs). He doesn't even know what his own views are. The guy's a joke.

Lowering the debt will do well in increasing the value of the dollar but it will be a very slow process and do very little to put money in our pockets now. We need to start bringing the larger companies back into the US and open up higher paying jobs instead of people dealing with the current pathetic state of the job market. How do you do that? Create incentives to bring them back here, like you know lowering taxes.

And Spoonman, you clearly missed the biggest point I made in my post, but I can't blame you. I wasn't even discussing the unemployment rate, I was discussing the fact that we don't have jobs in the U.S. that create GOODS to boost our economy. We don't make cars, TV's, clothes, basic materials a society needs/buys on a daily basis. Because we don't produce goods, we can have all the jobs we want but it still won't help our dollar and economy. We need to start making things on our own and stop relying on other countries to make it for us. It's that simple. If we did that and actually paid workers what they're worth as opposed to sending the work overseas and paying slave wages, we would see a dramatic boost in our economy. This goes back to NAFTA...

And when Obama raises taxes what incentive will there be for companies to produce these goods here?

What exactly is the point of making this absurd, ridiculously broad blanket statement?


Should I counter with the equally preposterous "all American soldiers and veterans, including McCain, are imperialist dog shit and unfit to be President"?

Really it was a joke, most people consider lawyers as some of the lowest and most corrupt human beings on the planet. Which is why we have so many jokes about them. But, the point stands that being a lawyer does not qualify you in anyway for a leadership position.

I hate when people discuss the unemployment rate. You really can't measure it. Many people have given up on finding jobs, or their unemployment benefits run out. There are so many other problems with the whole unemployment rating. We are starting to see a lot of layoffs now, and will continue to occur. I know mortgage companies in my area have begun layoffs because nobody is buying homes. We had an airport lay off around 1,000 jobs because nobody is flying. A call center was closed to go to India, around 100 jobs lost.

I know there are lay-offs going around out there, I was the victim of one earlier this year. However, raising taxes for businesses is going to make this worse. Hence why I support the tax cuts.

[MadsenOMC]

I'll stop talking to you like you're not a die-hard McCain supporter when you stop acting like one.

If being a lawyer in no way qualifies one for a position of leadership, then being a soldier doesn't either.

The tax cuts are not going to help most Americans. They're going to help those who are already rich.

Here, again, just for you.

A reality check for McCain supporters (especially those who somehow believe he is strong on the economy).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=aIr_h8Epzxjc#

McCain Needs Crash Course in Basic Economics

Commentary by Albert R. Hunt

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- The American presidential campaign this week was fought on economic terrain, and John McCain was the New York Yankees battling in Boston's Fenway Park or Liverpool playing at Manchester United's Old Trafford: the visiting team with a decided disadvantage.

The Republican standard-bearer isn't comfortable in the economic arena. He started off the week talking about a ``slowing'' economy. Slowing? Most Americans think it's going overboard and threatening to take them down.

He pledged to balance the budget by the end of his first term, which is inconsistent with the lavish tax cuts he also promises. He offered the same Social Security prescriptions that President George W. Bush failed to sell, insisting that somehow a more Democratic Congress would be receptive.

Contradictions, detours and flip-flops abound. On Bloomberg Television this spring, the Arizona Republican said there's been ``great progress'' economically under the Bush administration; the next day, he said Americans are ``hurting badly'' and aren't better off than they were eight years ago.

McCain likes to joke about his rebellious youth, noting that he graduated fifth-from-the-bottom of his 1958 U.S. Naval Academy class. The valedictorian of that class was Ronald Reagan's one-time national security adviser, John Poindexter, who barely avoided prison. This reinforces novelist Walker Percy's admonition not to get all A's and still flunk life.

McCain gets an A in life and in most subjects. Just not economics.

Quick Lesson

If he wants a quick tutorial there are two useful books: ``Unequal Democracy'' by Larry Bartels and ``High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families,'' by Peter Gosselin. They dismantle many of the policies he's espousing.

These aren't ideological diatribes. Bartels, a Princeton University political scientist, says he hasn't voted in a presidential election since 1984, when he supported Reagan. Gosselin is a well-regarded national economics correspondent for the Los Angeles Times.

The Gosselin book focuses on the precarious state of many American families as safety nets -- secure jobs, health coverage and pensions -- have frayed.

He tells tragic tales of a Duke University MBA who lost jobs at three financial institutions because of their bad business decisions and now works for a homeless shelter; of an insurance-firm employee whose own company denied her disability coverage when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis; and a widow whose husband was denied coverage for his alcoholism.

Love Your Insurer?

These aren't isolated stories. The centerpiece of the McCain health-care proposal is enabling more families to buy private insurance. It's tough to find a family with a severely ill or injured child who doesn't despise its private health insurer.

``Unequal Democracy'' lays out the widening gap between rich and poor. The dangers of growing income inequality in a democratic society aren't just the rantings of soak-the-rich left-wingers. Conservative central bankers from Arthur Burns to Alan Greenspan have worried about such a gap.

Bartels persuasively argues that this isn't simply a reflection of globalization or other events beyond our control. His research shows that government policies significantly affect economic inequality.

`The Death Tax'

Surveying the last 50 years, he finds real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as Republicans and six times as rapidly for the working poor.

In this campaign, the contrast between the estate tax and various proposals to help the working poor are illustrative.

The estate tax, or ``the death tax'' as the Republicans, in a public relations coup have labeled it, is assessed on fewer than 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans. For a couple, the first $7 million is exempt in 2009, as is anything given to charity; there are numerous loopholes around what's left.

McCain would raise that exemption to $10 million and lower the rate to 15 percent. Democrat Barack Obama would keep the 45 percent rate on estates over $7 million.

The McCain approach would cost the government $175 billion over 10 years more than Obama's, and most of the benefit would go to wealthy heirs who've done little to earn it -- affirmative action for the rich.

Less than one-third of that amount -- $50 billion -- would fund Obama's proposal to expand the earned-income tax credit, money given to the working poor to offset payroll taxes that typically eat up 15 percent of their income. It's one of the most effective anti-poverty and economically simulative measures -- these people have no choice but to spend the money.

Proposals Analyzed

The Tax Policy Center, a venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, analyzed the candidates' proposals: The working poor would get a $1,459 tax cut under Obama, more than double what McCain proposes.

The top 1 percent, mostly Americans averaging more than $1 million a year, would get a $38,389 tax increase under Obama, compared to a $126,951 tax cut under McCain.

``Income inequality would be exacerbated under McCain, says Len Burman, the director of the center who has objections to some specifics of each plan. ``Under Obama, the distribution of after-tax income would become slightly more equitable.''

McCain convincingly argues that the cost of entitlement programs must be curtailed. Sometimes the Republican nominee says higher payroll taxes are off the table, meaning the sacrifice falls mostly on middle- and working-class beneficiaries.

Fiorina Comments

In an interview, Carly Fiorina, a top adviser, explains that any tax increases on ``middle- and working-class'' Americans are off limits. She says if a bipartisan coalition is ``creative enough'' to fashion tax increases on wealthier Americans, that may prove palatable.

That's encouraging, until you consider that McCain doesn't always listen to his economic advisers. A few months ago, his top advisers counseled him that any reduction in the gasoline tax was bad energy and economic policy. A short while later, he advocated suspending the 18-cent-a-gallon tax for the summer.

Later, one of those puzzled economists wondered if he had forgotten to use the word ``not.''

[SpoonMan999]

I'll stop talking to you like you're not a die-hard McCain supporter when you stop acting like one.

If being a lawyer in no way qualifies one for a position of leadership, then being a soldier doesn't either.

The tax cuts are not going to help most Americans. They're going to help those who are already rich.

Here, again, just for you.

You're not listening to me at all are you? If we raise taxes on businesses you're going to see more lay offs and even more companies looking over seas. With those cuts they have more of a reason to stay, we need to make it worth their while.

Also, soldiers are trained to follow orders but also to lead during extreme circumstances. Being a soldier speaks louder on the resume than lawyer or community organizer would.

[MadsenOMC]

You're not listening to me at all are you? If we raise taxes on businesses you're going to see more lay offs and even more companies looking over seas. With those cuts they have more of a reason to stay, we need to make it worth their while.

Also, soldiers are trained to follow orders but also to lead during extreme circumstances. Being a soldier speaks louder on the resume than lawyer or community organizer would.

I don't think you really know what a community organizer does if you believe that. If you don't think one needs leadership skills to do that, you are sadly mistaken.

Did you even read the article I just posted? You should. It proves what a farce McCain's economic policies are, and it's from Bloomberg, not some liberal rag.

[SpoonMan999]

I don't think you really know what a community organizer does if you believe that. If you don't think one needs leadership skills to do that, you are sadly mistaken.

Did you even read the article I just posted? You should. It proves what a farce McCain's economic policies are, and it's from Bloomberg, not some liberal rag.

It requires leadership skills, but nowhere near what it would take to be president.

Again, I'm not praising him for his policies or claiming he has the best plan ever created for saving our economy. Just saying that I like his plan better.

[The Heart Collector]

Bush already lowered taxes for the wealthy and corporations; where the fuck are these awesome new jobs?

[Cop No. 633]

Bush already lowered taxes for the wealthy and corporations; where the fuck are these awesome new jobs?

hahahahaha.........

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[SpoonMan999]

Bush already lowered taxes for the wealthy and corporations; where the fuck are these awesome new jobs?

The job market sucks right now and this is due heavily to inflation and rising oil prices, cost of doing business is going way up, with higher taxes for them we're just sending more jobs over seas.

[shoe1985]

Actually Spoonman, during the majority of the Bush presidency, tax cuts have been done the majority of the time. During this time, more and more companies have outsourced. Look at Hershey's, who make the chocolate bar, they have a damn town named after them, a school, and other things, they are going to Mexico. I doubt very much they even pay taxes, if they do, it is probably really small amounts.

How do you control outsourcing, make those products that come into this country have a higher tariff. Like you said, we need to make incentives for companies to stay here, well, why not raise the price to bring those products into this country?

People are elected into office to do the work that will help everyone in this country, or at least the majority. NAFTA was a good idea, I will admit it. The problem lies in that the laws are different for all countries involved. Why should a company keep a job here, when they could go to Mexico, and have the workers there do the work for so much less? Look at China, Wal-Mart makes their toys there, pushing the workers to their limits, creating a toy that costs around $4 or $5, and then they sell it in their stores for $30 or more.

It isn't that companies can't make a lot of money keeping their factories here, they just don't want too. There are less problems when you outsource the work.

[Homyrrh]

Bush already lowered taxes for the wealthy and corporations; where the fuck are these awesome new jobs?
Ask Elian.