imagine that... a leader of a democracy listening to the will of the people!
woudl you still like a leader who listenned to the will of the people if say the peopel were saying that they were agianst gays marriage, UHC, leaving Iraq and abortion and were for the death penality, staying the course in teh war on terror. whould you then say "eh great look at the president listenning to teh people will."
i have a feeling that you might have a problem with this.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
I would vote for McCain because I agree with more of his principles than Obama's.
I would not vote for Obama because, as of late, he's made it exceedingly difficult to determine what his principles are exactly.
Well, I can't seem to convince you otherwise. I'm not seeing these massive shifts as you call them that Obama has done in regards to his positions. He has shifted slightly to the center in the past few months, but I believe Obama has principles and policies (the right kind) that will take us out of the toilet. McCain's will keep us right in it.
And if we want to talk about "flip-flopping" we could also have a very damaging conversation about how John McCain has firmly attached his lips to the ass of the social conservative movement of his party of which he was never a part because he knew he would not get the nomination otherwise. I see it being very difficult for even a McCain supporter to dispute this.
woudl you still like a leader who listenned to the will of the people if say the peopel were saying that they were agianst gays marriage, UHC, leaving Iraq and abortion and were for the death penality, staying the course in teh war on terror. whould you then say "eh great look at the president listenning to teh people will."
i have a feeling that you might have a problem with this.
By his logic, you can't blame Bush for going into Iraq. The majority of the people were for it at the time. Will of the people, man.
On a related note, the majority of the people are for increased off-shore drilling. Why hasn't congress brought it to a vote. Will of the people!
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Well, I can't seem to convince you otherwise. I'm not seeing these massive shifts as you call them to Obama. I believe Obama has principles and policies (the right kind) that will take us out of the toilet. McCain's will keep us right in it.
And if we want to talk about "flip-flopping" we could also have a very damaging conversation about how John McCain has firmly attached his lips to the ass of the social conservative movement of his party of which he was never a part because he knew he would not get the nomination otherwise. I see it being very difficult for even a McCain supporter to dispute this.
I can't really argue this either. It has been a pretty distasteful display from mccain at times. Like I said, he's not my ideal candidate by a longshot.
It's only when compared to obama that he looks like ronald friggin reagan.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I can't really argue this either. It has been a pretty distasteful display from mccain at times. Like I said, he's not my ideal candidate by a longshot.
It's only when compared to obama that he looks like ronald friggin reagan.
I think there is a difference here from Obama and McCain. Obama has shifted on some points; there's no doubt and I don't like it, but I've learned to stomach the need for seemingly every politician to veer left or right in the primaries and go for the center in the general. McCain on the other hand remade his entire identity, and in doing so, flipped on practically every issue he broke with his party on. Immigration, abortion, gay marriage, War on Terror, etc. etc. etc. I have no idea if it would be McCain from 2000 or McCain from 2008 who would show up on Inauguration day. Not to mention dismissing guys like Falwell and then falling right into bed with them.
So you must make 250k or higher. Nice!! Not to mention you don't mind an even higher budget deficit. Doesn't sound very conservative to me.
Decreased spending? What is McCain going to decrease spending on? He wants to continue the "War on Terror." I can't imagine that costing less than it does now. How does McCain propose he will decrease spending?
Elimination of earmarks? I'm sorry, isn't his running mate the queen of earmarks?
So which is it, John? Obviously, zippy, you agree with 2008 McCain.
Supreme Court Justices? Well Bush has already done the damage here, but I guess John will find some more judges willing to legislate from the bench, because that's what his party wants.
lower taxes, decreased spending, elimination of earmarks, war on terror (for the most part), abortion, supreme court justices
except for the earmark thing, of which I'm not sure of Obama's stance, I can say I agree with Obama's principles pertaining to the other issues you mention....
except for the earmark thing, of which I'm not sure of Obama's stance, I can say I agree with Obama's principles pertaining to the other issues you mention....
And that's why you should vote for him.
And why I'll vote for McCain.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
woudl you still like a leader who listenned to the will of the people if say the peopel were saying that they were agianst gays marriage, UHC, leaving Iraq and abortion and were for the death penality, staying the course in teh war on terror. whould you then say "eh great look at the president listenning to teh people will."
i have a feeling that you might have a problem with this.
So you must make 250k or higher. Nice!! Not to mention you don't mind an even higher budget deficit. Doesn't sound very conservative to me.
I don't make more than 250K, but my employer does. Look into what Obama wants to do regarding taxing corporations.
Sure, Obama's tax plan won't affect you ... unless you buy basic goods and services like food and gasoline, or earn a paycheck.
Decreased spending? What is McCain going to decrease spending on? He wants to continue the "War on Terror." I can't imagine that costing less than it does now. How does McCain propose he will decrease spending?
There is much more to the budget than military spending. In fact, we are spending a smaller percentage of the GDP on military now than we were in the 80s.
Elimination of earmarks? I'm sorry, isn't his running mate the queen of earmarks?
Ignoring the fact that there are prominent examples of Palin TURNING DOWN federal dollars, she isn't the one running for president, and she won't be the one in charge of the budget.
As for McCain ... the non-partisan group Citizens Against Government Waste gave him a 100 percent score for his work against earmarks during the 2007 session. Obama scored a 10 (that's out of 100 ... a F-minus, minus, minus basically).
And since you want to bring the Veeps into this ... Biden scored a 0. That's a zero. Which is hard to do even if you try.
Wow, looks like McCain was against Palin before he was FOR her.
Care to go over remarks Biden made about Obama during the primaries?
War on Terror? This has been as successful as the War on Drugs. Maybe if we don't continue this, it would....REDUCE SPENDING!!!
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Though it is admittedly an imperfect measure of the GWOT's success, I think the fact we haven't had a terror attack in the seven years since 9.11 counts for something. Yes, luck is involved, but I believe we've made a measure of our own luck ... freezing terrorist assets, enactment of the Patriot Act, and yes, militarily making it more difficult for Al Qaeda to conduct business as usual have all played a role.
I wouldn't expect anyone on the left to agree because, for both sides, giving credit where credit is due has become toxic in today's political climate.
Abortion?
Wow, when the Faux News hounds were after him, they did this story.
So which is it, John? Obviously, zippy, you agree with 2008 McCain.
Since the election is held in 2008, I guess this is a good thing.
Supreme Court Justices? Well Bush has already done the damage here, but I guess John will find some more judges willing to legislate from the bench, because that's what his party wants.
Actually, we want people who *don't* legislate from the bench, which is all Roe v. Wade is. That should be a state issue, not a national one. I would hope McCain would mean what he said and appoint strict constructionists to the bench.
I don't know what you thought you'd accomplish with your post. What did you expect me to say? "Oh, this dude on the Internet is right. All my principles are wrong!"
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
As for McCain ... the non-partisan group Citizens Against Government Waste gave him a 100 percent score for his work against earmarks during the 2007 session. Obama scored a 10 (that's out of 100 ... a F-minus, minus, minus basically).
And since you want to bring the Veeps into this ... Biden scored a 0. That's a zero. Which is hard to do even if you try.
Citizens Against Government Waste is non-profit, not non-partisian. They are an openly fiscal conservative group.
Citizens Against Government Waste is non-profit, not non-partisian. They are an openly fiscal conservative group.
OK, well then nevermind
EDIT: Although I'm not sure being fiscally conservative neccesarily bars them from making a judgment on earmarks. As a fiscal conservative myself, I would say anyone they give a thumbs-up to should be OK in my book, right?
For instance, if you are staunchly pro-choice, and NOW gives a particular candidate high marks ... wouldn't that be a good sign for you?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I
Since the election is held in 2008, I guess this is a good thing.
Weren't you telling me only one page ago about how Obama's flip-flopping was such a turnoff?
[/quote]
I don't know what you thought you'd accomplish with your post. What did you expect me to say? "Oh, this dude on the Internet is right. All my principles are wrong!"[/quote]
No, but people should be able to respond when someone backs up their arguments with facts and figures that refute your argument. That's what a discussion is, and that's really the only reason someone would come to this board.
I also was interested in how you moved the goal posts in your defense of McCain's "tax cuts"...whereas before it was lower taxes period, when the other poster refuted that statement, it became a trickle-down effect from your employer.
Weren't you telling me only one page ago about how Obama's flip-flopping was such a turnoff?
I guess I'm a flip-flopper then ...
Seriously, McCain has some decent pro-life credentials ... and when we're talking abortion, what we're really talking is the Supreme Court issue, anyway. He's said he'll appoint only strict constructionists, and I believe him.
This is an instance where not knowing exactly what a candidate will do is better than the alternative.
I would rather take a chance on McCain appointing my kind of justices, rather than voting for Obama, who I am for 100 percent certain will not.
I think I've mentioned before that McCain is not my ideal candidate. But he's the only serious one I've got in this election.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
This is an instance where not knowing exactly what a candidate will do is better than the alternative.
Yes, of course, because you wouldn't want to vote for somebody when you vote him in where, right or wrong, he believes in what he's doing. What you see is what you get with Obama, and that isn't good at all.
I'd smile to let you know this is in jest, but I don't really know how. Anyways, your words, not mine.
EDIT: Although I'm not sure being fiscally conservative neccesarily bars them from making a judgment on earmarks. As a fiscal conservative myself, I would say anyone they give a thumbs-up to should be OK in my book, right?
For instance, if you are staunchly pro-choice, and NOW gives a particular candidate high marks ... wouldn't that be a good sign for you?
Absolutely. I just wanted everyone to be clear that they are not non-partisian. They determine their own parameters on what's waste and what isn't, based on their decidedly partisian beliefs, and rank politicians accordingly.
No, but people should be able to respond when someone backs up their arguments with facts and figures that refute your argument. That's what a discussion is, and that's really the only reason someone would come to this board.
Of course, I agree ... but I don't think that was that dude's point. He asked for a list of principles I agreed with McCain on. I gave him a list. Then he proceeded to trash it. I wasn't arguing with him. I was just answering a question for him.
He asked the question simply to bash my views ... which he knew he wouldn't agree with even before he asked the question. It was a waste of bandwith.
At least he did it without any childish name-calling, however, which is a step up from his performance on other threads of this nature. So kudos go out there.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Absolutely. I just wanted everyone to be clear that they are not non-partisian. They determine their own parameters on what's waste and what isn't, based on their decidedly partisian beliefs, and rank politicians accordingly.
I misspoke, and I appreciate the information. It is important to know the biases of different sources of info ... that I can agree on.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Of course, I agree ... but I don't think that was that dude's point. He asked for a list of principles I agreed with McCain on. I gave him a list. Then he proceeded to trash it. I wasn't arguing with him. I was just answering a question for him.
He asked the question simply to bash my views ... which he knew he wouldn't agree with even before he asked the question. It was a waste of bandwith.
At least he did it without any childish name-calling, however, which is a step up from his performance on other threads of this nature. So kudos go out there.
Well, to be fair he backed up everything he was saying. That's more than most people, liberal or conservative, do here or in general.
Comments
One day we'll see YOU making a grand fireworks-punctuated stadium speech in front of 70,000. And I'll say I knew you when ...
for the least they could possibly do
lower taxes, decreased spending, elimination of earmarks, war on terror (for the most part), abortion, supreme court justices
for the least they could possibly do
woudl you still like a leader who listenned to the will of the people if say the peopel were saying that they were agianst gays marriage, UHC, leaving Iraq and abortion and were for the death penality, staying the course in teh war on terror. whould you then say "eh great look at the president listenning to teh people will."
i have a feeling that you might have a problem with this.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Well, I can't seem to convince you otherwise. I'm not seeing these massive shifts as you call them that Obama has done in regards to his positions. He has shifted slightly to the center in the past few months, but I believe Obama has principles and policies (the right kind) that will take us out of the toilet. McCain's will keep us right in it.
And if we want to talk about "flip-flopping" we could also have a very damaging conversation about how John McCain has firmly attached his lips to the ass of the social conservative movement of his party of which he was never a part because he knew he would not get the nomination otherwise. I see it being very difficult for even a McCain supporter to dispute this.
By his logic, you can't blame Bush for going into Iraq. The majority of the people were for it at the time. Will of the people, man.
On a related note, the majority of the people are for increased off-shore drilling. Why hasn't congress brought it to a vote. Will of the people!
for the least they could possibly do
I can't really argue this either. It has been a pretty distasteful display from mccain at times. Like I said, he's not my ideal candidate by a longshot.
It's only when compared to obama that he looks like ronald friggin reagan.
for the least they could possibly do
I wasn't counting the people who thought they were showing up for the broncos' season opener ...
for the least they could possibly do
I think there is a difference here from Obama and McCain. Obama has shifted on some points; there's no doubt and I don't like it, but I've learned to stomach the need for seemingly every politician to veer left or right in the primaries and go for the center in the general. McCain on the other hand remade his entire identity, and in doing so, flipped on practically every issue he broke with his party on. Immigration, abortion, gay marriage, War on Terror, etc. etc. etc. I have no idea if it would be McCain from 2000 or McCain from 2008 who would show up on Inauguration day. Not to mention dismissing guys like Falwell and then falling right into bed with them.
Lower taxes? http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/09/mccain_taxes/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR2008090701950.html
So you must make 250k or higher. Nice!! Not to mention you don't mind an even higher budget deficit. Doesn't sound very conservative to me.
Decreased spending? What is McCain going to decrease spending on? He wants to continue the "War on Terror." I can't imagine that costing less than it does now. How does McCain propose he will decrease spending?
Elimination of earmarks? I'm sorry, isn't his running mate the queen of earmarks?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,5932587.story
Wow, looks like McCain was against Palin before he was FOR her.
War on Terror? This has been as successful as the War on Drugs. Maybe if we don't continue this, it would....REDUCE SPENDING!!!
Abortion?
Wow, when the Faux News hounds were after him, they did this story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQU0TF18ZfI&feature=related
So which is it, John? Obviously, zippy, you agree with 2008 McCain.
Supreme Court Justices? Well Bush has already done the damage here, but I guess John will find some more judges willing to legislate from the bench, because that's what his party wants.
except for the earmark thing, of which I'm not sure of Obama's stance, I can say I agree with Obama's principles pertaining to the other issues you mention....
And that's why you should vote for him.
And why I'll vote for McCain.
for the least they could possibly do
i would. so i'd move.
deal....!
I don't make more than 250K, but my employer does. Look into what Obama wants to do regarding taxing corporations.
Sure, Obama's tax plan won't affect you ... unless you buy basic goods and services like food and gasoline, or earn a paycheck.
There is much more to the budget than military spending. In fact, we are spending a smaller percentage of the GDP on military now than we were in the 80s.
Ignoring the fact that there are prominent examples of Palin TURNING DOWN federal dollars, she isn't the one running for president, and she won't be the one in charge of the budget.
As for McCain ... the non-partisan group Citizens Against Government Waste gave him a 100 percent score for his work against earmarks during the 2007 session. Obama scored a 10 (that's out of 100 ... a F-minus, minus, minus basically).
And since you want to bring the Veeps into this ... Biden scored a 0. That's a zero. Which is hard to do even if you try.
Care to go over remarks Biden made about Obama during the primaries?
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Though it is admittedly an imperfect measure of the GWOT's success, I think the fact we haven't had a terror attack in the seven years since 9.11 counts for something. Yes, luck is involved, but I believe we've made a measure of our own luck ... freezing terrorist assets, enactment of the Patriot Act, and yes, militarily making it more difficult for Al Qaeda to conduct business as usual have all played a role.
I wouldn't expect anyone on the left to agree because, for both sides, giving credit where credit is due has become toxic in today's political climate.
Since the election is held in 2008, I guess this is a good thing.
Actually, we want people who *don't* legislate from the bench, which is all Roe v. Wade is. That should be a state issue, not a national one. I would hope McCain would mean what he said and appoint strict constructionists to the bench.
I don't know what you thought you'd accomplish with your post. What did you expect me to say? "Oh, this dude on the Internet is right. All my principles are wrong!"
for the least they could possibly do
I have a feeling neither of our votes are gonna matter much anyway, based on our respective geographic locations.
for the least they could possibly do
OK, well then nevermind
EDIT: Although I'm not sure being fiscally conservative neccesarily bars them from making a judgment on earmarks. As a fiscal conservative myself, I would say anyone they give a thumbs-up to should be OK in my book, right?
For instance, if you are staunchly pro-choice, and NOW gives a particular candidate high marks ... wouldn't that be a good sign for you?
for the least they could possibly do
Weren't you telling me only one page ago about how Obama's flip-flopping was such a turnoff?
[/quote]
I don't know what you thought you'd accomplish with your post. What did you expect me to say? "Oh, this dude on the Internet is right. All my principles are wrong!"[/quote]
No, but people should be able to respond when someone backs up their arguments with facts and figures that refute your argument. That's what a discussion is, and that's really the only reason someone would come to this board.
I also was interested in how you moved the goal posts in your defense of McCain's "tax cuts"...whereas before it was lower taxes period, when the other poster refuted that statement, it became a trickle-down effect from your employer.
he'll be done..
EV intro to Chloe Dancer / Crown of Thorns
10/25/13 Hartford
I guess I'm a flip-flopper then ...
Seriously, McCain has some decent pro-life credentials ... and when we're talking abortion, what we're really talking is the Supreme Court issue, anyway. He's said he'll appoint only strict constructionists, and I believe him.
This is an instance where not knowing exactly what a candidate will do is better than the alternative.
I would rather take a chance on McCain appointing my kind of justices, rather than voting for Obama, who I am for 100 percent certain will not.
I think I've mentioned before that McCain is not my ideal candidate. But he's the only serious one I've got in this election.
for the least they could possibly do
Do you mean McCain's stuttering or Obama's?
Seriously ... listen to anything unscripted by Obama and count the "uhhhhs" ... it would be a fun little drinking game!
for the least they could possibly do
EV intro to Chloe Dancer / Crown of Thorns
10/25/13 Hartford
Yes, of course, because you wouldn't want to vote for somebody when you vote him in where, right or wrong, he believes in what he's doing. What you see is what you get with Obama, and that isn't good at all.
I'd smile to let you know this is in jest, but I don't really know how. Anyways, your words, not mine.
Of course, I agree ... but I don't think that was that dude's point. He asked for a list of principles I agreed with McCain on. I gave him a list. Then he proceeded to trash it. I wasn't arguing with him. I was just answering a question for him.
He asked the question simply to bash my views ... which he knew he wouldn't agree with even before he asked the question. It was a waste of bandwith.
At least he did it without any childish name-calling, however, which is a step up from his performance on other threads of this nature. So kudos go out there.
for the least they could possibly do
I misspoke, and I appreciate the information. It is important to know the biases of different sources of info ... that I can agree on.
for the least they could possibly do
Well, to be fair he backed up everything he was saying. That's more than most people, liberal or conservative, do here or in general.