During John McCain's speech he said..

brandon10 wrote:

If you can't see the problems with the Gop's foreign policy and the likelihood of them invading Iran, then you are truly blind. Or worse yet you support the idea.
!

For the record ... while not as strong, and rich with diplomacy talk .... Obama has stated that in no uncertain terms that Iran should be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon .... McCain or Obama ... if they get a nuclear weapon, we're going into Iran (because if we don't, no more Israel).

Now, the point is, who do you think will handle this better .... the crusty old vet, who was tortured and beaten, has a nasty temper and has alrady shown his propensity to spout off (see Russia/Georgia ... "we are all Georgians" ... really?)

or ... Obama ... who, is a fresh change and may ... MAY just be able to talk the middle east down from nuclear armageddon.

jimed14 wrote:

For the record ... while not as strong, and rich with diplomacy talk .... Obama has stated that in no uncertain terms that Iran should be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon .... McCain or Obama ... if they get a nuclear weapon, we're going into Iran (because if we don't, no more Israel).

Now, the point is, who do you think will handle this better .... the crusty old vet, who was tortured and beaten, has a nasty temper and has alrady shown his propensity to spout off (see Russia/Georgia ... "we are all Georgians" ... really?)

or ... Obama ... who, is a fresh change and may ... MAY just be able to talk the middle east down from nuclear armageddon.

I don't think that McCain's torture and captivity should be held against him in anyway. It is completely irrelevent when it comes to politics.

jimed14 wrote:

if it is irrelivent, then why did the republicans talk about it EVERY chance they had over the last 4 days?

Because they have nothing else to go on. The fact that he was a POW should not be used to dismiss him as a candidate or elevate him as a candidate. It has no bearing on politics.

slightofjeff wrote:

If it becomes an issue, it's going to be one that actually works FOR McCain ... he can spin it, "If Obama would have had his way, Iraq would have been lost."

True or not, that's something that might resonate with millions of Americans.

And Obama will immediately be able to counter "If I had had my way, we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place, unlike you, Senator McCain, who supported the President's decision to go to war."

And the American public will suddenly remember again that Obama opposed and McCain supported the start of a war that 80% of the people oppose.

cincybearcat wrote:

1) I believe it would be different. I think John McCain would certainly use diplomacy more and I also think that if it came down to military action, he would use it more wisely. I wonder just how quick he would use military action though.

why do you believe that? he's already said he's not interested in diplomatic talks before "pre-conditions" are set with Iran, same policy as Bush. Foreign Policy with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is absolutely terrible in general. his policy on Iraq is exactly the same as Bush's... Afghanistan is the same as Bush's...

seriously, the only thing you wrote is just a general statement with no real details of how he's different, in which cases, etc...

2) I think we should drill on American soil and off-shore as part of a comprehensive plan.

oh? and which comprehensive plan is that?

5) Civil Liberties? I'm going to guess that no matter what I say it won;t matter on this one so let's just pass.

why wouldn't it matter? do you support the patriot act or something? do you support fisa? do you support the fact that the prosecutors under Ashcroft, Gonzalez, and McKasey have been abusing their power? the fact that civil liberties in general have been under threat since 9/11 due to the current administration?

6) Domestic Policy - I believe it would be different...less spending. W was part democrat with all that spending.

less spending is all you can come up with for domestic policy? McCain is ready to keep troops in Iraq longer, is that not more spending? he said 'bomb Iran', is that not more spending? he's going to pursue afghanistan, is that not more spending?

cincybearcat wrote:

In your first example, the $50,000 person is paying $20,000 in tax...the $500,000 person is paying $200,000....isn't that enough more?

Cna you see that if you tax the upper ends too much, you reduce incentives to improve? Especially since you are then taking that $ and giving it free to people who didn;t have to earn it? So, now you are punishing improvement and then rewarding the status quo.

Regarding your second point, I've heard it often, and to be honest, I think it's completely untrue. Reducing incentives to improve? The incentive to improve is to improve the life of yourself and your family, by attaining more money to pay for health care, education, etc. Why would someone be dissuaded from improving just because they knew the taxes were higher at the top? I think people would be dissuaded from improving without having any support at all in the first leg of their fight for upward mobility. I'm not saying that you were proposing this, but it's just not as easy as pulling yourself up by your bootstraps anymore. And McCain is 'trickle down' economics; again. The idea that if you alleviate the burden in the upper brackets which will then lower prices, etc. etc. And you know...it didn't work in the 80's. It didn't work in the 2000's, under Bush 2. It's not going to work; how many times to we have to elect a Republican president that pulls this foolhardy economic plan before we realize that it's a bullshit plan?

Also, I should note that as a hard-working individual who will only be making 30,000 this year (most likely as a community organizer, if you can believe it) I would receive a tax cut under the Obama plan. Under the McCain plan I will not, so I'm voting for my self-interest. Maybe if I end up in that top 5%, my priorities will change.

A flat tax? OK, I'm going to lower the numbers just to keep it a bit more manageable. Let's say someone makes 100 bucks a year (bare with me) whereas someone in that top 5% makes 1000 bucks a year (keeping the percentages correct from the earlier example). There is a flat tax of, say, 20 percent (change the number to suit your purposes, it won't change my argument. That means that the person making 100 a year will take home 80, and the person making 1000 will take home 800, if I've done my math right. You're telling me that person making less, but someone with a new business idea, and or innovation, is going to say "well, i could make 800 instead of the 80 I'm making now, but they tax so much more up there. I don't think I'll continue working and developing my innovative idea." Theoretically, I think that argument makes sense but when you apply it to a real-world situation with real-world concerns it falls flat on its face, in my (admittedly limited) opinion in regards to taxing and spending. Maybe you can tell me something about this I don't know.

mammasan wrote:

I agree something needs to change but both men have it wrong. the first step to fiscal health is to reduce spending significantly. I'm not talking about a million here or million there. I'm talking in the tens of billions. If we don't drastically cut spending it doesn't matter what plan we implement because spending will continue to rise so to adjust for that either taxes will rise or inflation will rise weakening the dollars.

fine. i say, let's start with the military. how's about no more multitrillion dollar wars for a while, eh?

as a great man said just a few weeks ago...

"People the world over have always admired us more for the power of our example than for the example of our power." – Bill Clinton at the 2008 DNC