The democrats are all about the people

prytoj

I'll let your videos stand on their own merit, and I think they support the argument that McCain is an independent thinker.
By the way, no more 30 sec. mix tapes that cut off half the response. That is just rediculous.

bootlegger10

digster wrote:

Huh? Who is talking about Lieberman?

If you knew how to reason, you could see that saying voting with Bush 95% of the time makes McCain the same as Bush, and at the same time your party saying Lieberman voting 95% of the time with the liberals actually makes him a conservative, does not seem to make sense.

Your party crucified Lieberman for voting 95% of the time with the Democrats, because then he wasn't a real Democrat. I guess under your vindictive party's logic, then McCain is not a true Republican.

digster

prytoj wrote:

I'll let your videos stand on their own merit, and I think they support the argument that McCain is an independent thinker.
By the way, no more 30 sec. mix tapes that cut off half the response. That is just rediculous.

How do they support McCain being an independent thinker? He's shifted on most of those major issues you spoke about since his first run for President in 2000. Which I find upsetting; I would have voted for him over Gore in 2000. However, he realized he was not going to win and sold out to win the nomination. I know every candidate moves to the respective right or left to win the nomination, and then moves back to the center for the general. But I don't really see how anyone could say that McCain hasn't shifted.

prytoj

digster wrote:

But like I said; we weren't talking about Obama's record. We were talking about McCain's record. It's plain and simply not as bipartisan as you have been claiming; it is slightly, but only slightly less partisan than Obama. And the facts show this, so I understand why you wanted to change the argument; I can understand why you keep wanting to bring up Obama, because you have nothing to defend McCain with.

the actual point of the thread is how Dems need poverty to stay in power, while GOP's require riches to stay in power, as the video portion of the original post suggests. Let's stay on-topic, indeed.

digster

bootlegger10 wrote:

If you knew how to reason, you could see that saying voting with Bush 95% of the time makes McCain the same as Bush, and at the same time your party saying Lieberman voting 95% of the time with the liberals actually makes him a conservative, does not seem to make sense.

Your party crucified Lieberman for voting 95% of the time with the Democrats, because then he wasn't a real Democrat. I guess under your vindictive party's logic, then McCain is not a true Republican.

Well, "my party" is not my party. I'm voting for Obama; that doesn't make me a Democrat.

I consider 'reason' to stick to the argument at hand, not to try and change the argument when it becomes difficult to my side. I do not consider 'reason' to bring in something completely unrelated to the argument. And if I remember correctly, the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut were unsatisfied with Lieberman's stance on the war and did not want him representing their party in 2006. So they voted for Ned Lamont and Lieberman ended up winning. What does that have to do with McCain? They hated Lieberman's pro-Iraq stance and wanted something else. You know, with this whole voting thing, people are allowed to do that.

And I still don't see what Lieberman's election campaign in 2006 has to do with John McCain's presidential run in 2008. Seems to me that you're grasping at straws and have nothing to add to the debate prytoj and I were having. But maybe that's just my faulty 'reasoning.'

prytoj

digster wrote:

You mean to tell me you think that John McCain changed his mind on the tax cuts because of economic developments? He shifted to the right to get the nomination; even the most ardent McCain apologists I've seen have been willing to admit that. Remember, these were the tax cuts he found 'offensive' in 2003. What changed between then and now? He ran for President..

That and...

the tech bubble popping in 2000

the towers fell in 2001, prompting two highly inefficient wars

the housing crisis hit in '08.

These are pretty profound developements, game-changers really, as time has born out. You're saying McCain is pandering, but the evidence ovewhelmingly suggests the opposite.

digster

prytoj wrote:

That and...

the tech bubble popping in 2000

the towers fell in 2001, prompting two highly inefficient wars

the housing crisis hit in '08.

These are pretty profound developements, game-changers really, as time has born out. You're saying McCain is pandering, but the evidence ovewhelmingly suggests the opposite.

Your first two examples occurred before McCain even opposed the tax cuts. The first two examples occurred before President Bush even proposed them. They weren't passed until May 2003. And McCain has opposed the Bush tax cuts long before the crisis of this year; he's been against them since he started running for President. So there are problems with all of your examples here. There is no evidence that suggests what you state; all the evidence suggests that McCain needed to make nice with the Bush supporters of the Republican Party and sold out, and he underestimated how much damage that would do to his campaign in the general election.

Plus, why would McCain propose tax cuts in regards to two wars? That's the reason you need MORE money.

prytoj

digster wrote:

Your first two examples occurred before McCain even opposed the tax cuts. The first two examples occurred before President Bush even proposed them. They weren't passed until May 2003. And McCain has opposed the Bush tax cuts long before the crisis of this year; he's been against them since he started running for President. So there are problems with all of your examples here. There is no evidence that suggests what you state; all the evidence suggests that McCain needed to make nice with the Bush supporters of the Republican Party and sold out, and he underestimated how much damage that would do to his campaign in the general election.

Plus, why would McCain propose tax cuts in regards to two wars? That's the reason you need MORE money.

but the consequences of these took time to bear out. The housing crisis started in the late 80's at least, and some would argue since the inception of mac/mae decades before.

It's a wave, building before it breaks....

prytoj

digster wrote:

Your first two examples occurred before McCain even opposed the tax cuts. The first two examples occurred before President Bush even proposed them. They weren't passed until May 2003. And McCain has opposed the Bush tax cuts long before the crisis of this year; he's been against them since he started running for President. So there are problems with all of your examples here. There is no evidence that suggests what you state; all the evidence suggests that McCain needed to make nice with the Bush supporters of the Republican Party and sold out, and he underestimated how much damage that would do to his campaign in the general election.

Plus, why would McCain propose tax cuts in regards to two wars? That's the reason you need MORE money.

you need MORE JOBS and MORE INDUSTRY to have MORE MONEY.
Govenrment is historically underachievers in handling our money. You cannot adequately increase revenue by raising taxes, but you can by raising econimic development. That's just econ 101

digster

prytoj wrote:

you need MORE JOBS and MORE INDUSTRY to have MORE MONEY.
Govenrment is historically underachievers in handling our money. You cannot adequately increase revenue by raising taxes, but you can by raising econimic development. That's just econ 101

You are reaching and dodging again. We are not debating the merit or lack thereof of raising or lowering taxes. We are talking about McCain's 'independent' streak, or lack thereof. And there is no evidence that proves your assertion. No one really knows whether he 'really' believes the tax cuts are a good idea now or if he is blowing smoke up our ass, but considering he has flip-flopped on practically everything else I'm going out on a limb to say it's another example of McCain selling out his principle to appeal to a base he needed to win the Republican nomination. He called these tax cuts "offensive" in 2003. Five years later, he says the exact opposite. He wants to make them permanent. You can try to spin this complicated web of how McCain really has our best interests at heart, but the fact remains that he completely reversed his position in five years' time. What happened between then? He ran for President. Makes you wonder.

prytoj

I argued your off-topic points head on, point by point. There's no dodging here. Im just following you where you go.

Stay on topic, and I'll follow you there as well.

heartdesire

digster wrote:

You're a confusing, confusing poster. I don't know if you actually believe you're right or not.

Very true.

searchlightsoul

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Why don't you take that same comb and take a look at McCain's abhorrent voting record. But of course we can't do that...right?

John's a "Hero"..."A Maverick"..."He Crosses Party Lines"

Oh...Wait a minute. How many times has he voted with Bush?

And how about John's voting in regads to the "Brave Men and Women In The Military" that he so claims to care for...OOPS...Sore spot!!

How about Energy? Sarah Palin's specialty

Ooops...

Forget about Windpower, Solar Power, Alternative Energy...That's absurd.

Funny how an Arizona Senator can get so far when he votes against

THE SUN...

Drill baby Drill

Coming from a geologist with experience in the oil industry I can say that Sarah Palin knows fuck all about Energy.

I mean Drill Baby Drill? Cause its just that fucking easy to find oil...:rolleyes: What a dumb bitch.

_

timmyshee wrote:

Agreed, but is there any chance that original misinformation can become real hard facts when it is misquoted, miscontextuallised, misused across a range of media and generally tailored to meet either sides need in any argument?

I'm speaking particularly about the internet, which is largely unpoliced and unregulated, where any old number can become a hard fact, whilst at the same time people feel more able to participate in debates without the normal contraints, as they are anonymous figures and can say whatever they feel without fear and thus they cross boundaries that they would not in normal life.

I'm not trying to knocked freedom of speecha dn freedom to debate, but I would say that I see the same facts being quoted by both sides with different spin - rather than allowing us to get to the bottom of the facts, I think the internet and increased voter participation in the information sharing process has simply led to more misinformation than ever before.

Good luck on Nov 4th, though!

You're probably right about this. That's why people have to pay particular attention to their sources of information.

But, not having a TV, I have found forums like this helpful in my endeavor to learn the facts. That's not to say that I believe whatever people on here say, but there are so many people (with such varying views) here that many original sources are posted that I might not otherwise have found in the chaos of the internet.

_

walden freeman wrote:

Just because your favorite celebrity likes something, doesn't mean it's good. Eddie Vedder is a great musician, but, I couldn't care less who he supports for president.

I am so sick of hearing this bullshit.

Do you think that no one here other than you (or those who disagree with Eddie Vedder) can think for themselves? Given that so many millions of non-fans have come to the conclusion that they like Obama with no knowledge of who Eddie Vedder supports, is it really totally implausible for any Pearl Jam fan to come to that same conclusion on their own as well? Do you not think that perhaps some people either a) don't care what Eddie Vedder thinks about politics, or b) like Pearl Jam because PJ agrees with THEIR politics? Hell, maybe Eddie is copying me!

Regardless, I find this comment offensive, unoriginal, and just another tired line frequently used in an attempt to discredit what others believe without actually addressing the issues. Is that kind of thing really necessary?