Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-02-2008, 04:24 PM   #1
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
Default Let's talk issues

Still waiting for an example of an Obama stance on an issue.

posters choice of issue.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 04:32 PM   #2
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Tax the rich! (ie anyone making over 250K a year)
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 04:40 PM   #3
Foust Farseer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,406
Yea it's going to be fun paying more taxes than I do already.
__________________
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Foust Farseer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 04:47 PM   #4
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Tax the rich! (ie anyone making over 250K a year)
This is not a popularity contest like Davis wants Drysdale, we need specifics. To what extent? How will he continue to keep America competitive as a place that employs people? To what extent will these taxes be raised so as to stay more inexpensive than moving the bulk of the naitons wealth overseas?

I know you were tongue in cheek, but preemptively before a Chiteng comes along and latches onto your statement as a snazzy Robin Hood catch phrase, I'm asking them for more than the punch line: It's all fun and games to say "They got money, others don't, make em pay!" but here on Planet Earth we know that if you tighten the vise too much it goes away completely.

What exactly, beyond the "popular among retards catch phrase" is the plan?
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 06:17 PM   #5
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060900950.html
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2008, 06:40 PM   #6
Pafuna
Brilliant Curmudgeon
 
Pafuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the Pocket of Big Oil
Posts: 2,063
Originally Posted by AjTaliesen View Post
Still waiting for an example of an Obama stance on an issue.

posters choice of issue.

All right, I'll bite -

Obama's foreign policy stance would include much broader diplomatic engagements with such rogue states as Iran. In fact, he's quoted Kennedy, stipulating we should not negotiate out of fear but never fear to negotiate.

On the surface, that's a pretty resounding byte. Matter of fact, it seems pretty reasonable.

The problem here is this - diplomatic relations in and of themselves are a means of recognition and status. At the international level, for example, recognizing a country as a sovereign state carries with it some pretty impressive recognition. Nations with diplomatic relations get embassies, trade representation, and a certain status among the world powers. Diplomatic representation in the UN and embassies around the world bespeaks of a nation's prestige and influence. Diplomacy isn't simply fancy words - diplomacy is a means for major world powers to provide common protocols to carry on the business of civilization. It's that important. This is why embassies are considered sovereign soil of the tenant nation, because it is a projection of that nation's political power as well as an avenue for access to the highest authority of that nation.

Another point on this vein - it is not only important for countries to have diplomatic relations, it speaks volumes of the seriousness of that nation's intent to do diplomacy. Foreign ministers, secretaries of state, and similar positions are considered among the highest representation of a nation's diplomatic mission: meaning, if Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice shows up in the Middle East, you can bet that the U.S. is serious about its intentions in the region. If a mid-level ambassador shows up to interact with a country's foreign mission, then it typically means that the relations don't necessarily rate.

One more point - a nation with a foreign minister or sec/state does not necessarily warrant a meeting with a world power. For instance, Sec/State Rice would typically meet with other world leaders for foreign missions, precisely because she's the face of the administration. I would not expect Rice to entertain a meeting with a much smaller nation's foreign minister, simply because it is not befitting of the political reality (a foreign minister from lower Slobovia does not rate a meeting with the Sec/State, much less the President of the U.S.).


Now, I pointed all this out because I feel that in this context, Obama's willingness to place the prestige of the office of the President and this nation on display for an Iranian propaganda coup, especially since the current President of Iran is also believed to have invaded the sovereign soil of a U.S. Embassy in 1976 and taken our citizens hostage, is foolish.

The Iranians have a long history of talk-and-fight, meaning carry on diplomatic talks dragged on over time while their proxy forces fight. It's a time sink for the opponent, long used by the Irish Republican Army, the Soviet Union, and other terrorist and totalitarian regimes.

How is it, then, that Barack Obama intends to spend what little diplomatic capital this country has on engaging a state known to sponsor terror worldwide only to come out at the end of the deal with nothing to show? It's madness and the preeminent reason why I'll never cast a vote for him precisely because of his foreign policy naivete'.


Repartee', mons'eur...
__________________
Originally Posted by Ini View Post
Holy shit I think Pafuna just won the intraweb!
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
Damn, is Pafuna allowed to win the intrawebs twice, or is it a lifetime achievement thing?
Pafuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008, 04:07 PM   #7
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
so...two McCain supporters...dead shiny pink neon silence from Obama supporters.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008, 04:51 PM   #8
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Well, I think DD is voting for Barr. But certainly not Barack "Welfare State" Obama.
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2008, 06:45 PM   #9
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
Well, I think DD is voting for Barr. But certainly not Barack "Welfare State" Obama.
Amen my brotha!
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 11:33 PM   #10
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
Just curious, but why Barr?

Not that it matters, Texas votes dont really count these days any more than Massachusets votes, it would go RNC even if they nominated Al Gore's dead cat, but was wondering. Is it just the Libertarian thing?

From things you've posted I'd say you're as anti-pork as I am, a cause that McCain has long been a champion of.

(one project in his whole tenure $10mil for an academic center, which doesn't actually count as pork since it was a stand alone request, not an earmark in an omnibus, it got weighed on it's own merits).

The pork report gives him a 100% rating still. Personally, when talking economy I'm more inclined to back an end to pork as a more important goal than either tax cuts or tax increases on the "wealthy" in terms of what it would do for the nations.


Still think Barr is a bad choice for the Libertarian party...the party has great ideals, but they keep putting the least politically capable people in charge. Barr is kind of case in point...too hard right for even the RNC, the Libertarian party was largely responsible for pointing this out and ousting him from congress. They should have shown him the door when he came knocking after the RNC had nothing for him. Instead the put him in charge.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2008, 11:35 PM   #11
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
side note: would love to see a third party, and what the Libertarians stand for would be a fantastic choice, that alone may almost be reason enough to give them vote on the national ticket, though I still say that running a loser only hurts the party.

They'd be a million times better off walking from Presidential race and concentrating more on building grass roots. A strong position in the house would not be out of reach for them if they got thier act together. At that point it would no longer be possible to ignore them or shut them out of the big chair discussions.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 03:51 AM   #12
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
so...two McCain supporters...dead shiny pink neon silence from Obama supporters.
Well, I'm the only one left. All the others realized how fucking stupid you con fucks are and don't want to waste any more time.

How will he continue to keep America competitive as a place that employs people?
By investing in the infrastructure (150 billion over ten years) to rebuild our country's infrastructure as well as by increasing our self sufficiency on green and self sufficient energy. This is the new growth industry as it will change the way we live. Why, because it is possible to create green and self sufficient energy in individual homes and businesses but it is unreasonable to transport fuel to individual homes. In fact, that is the way we currently (no pun intended) do it.

And how does this help? Well, every time our country has invested in our infrastructure we have grown greatly. You can ask Eisenhower as well as Teddy Roosevelt and FDR about that. When you do that, initially you create jobs that build the infrastructure. From that you create the ability to create more jobs.
For example when Teddy worked at electrifying America the result brought about the creation and sales of electronic products as a result. Refrigerators, TVs, washing machines, stoves/ovens, all came about from this. On top of this, it changed and grew the agriculture industry as refrigeration in the home was possible. As a result, more types of foods were now being produced which then became a growth industry in itself. This allowed people to move away from the farm, thus bringing more types of jobs.

When FDR had his WPA (Works Progress Administration) it actually employed the most people in the country. It did help bring us out of the depression. This actually gave us the economic and structural base to prepare to fight WW II. For example, we now had a greater ability to create steel closer to where the iron ore existed. Also, we were further able to afford better communications and it allowed the growth of many other communities. Instead of just electrifying the farms, we could now move away from the farm. This helped create the service sector and the home construction industry which hadn't really existed until then. Plumbing became a growth business, home construction became a growth business. The home industry as well as anything to do with a home became a growth industry.

Ike had the highways act which built interstate highways. Although built for the military, it allowed for a more mobile society. This allowed trucking to become more of an industry and allowed goods made in Florida (such as orange juice) to become a useful product in Nebraska for example. Because of this it also allowed for the further expansion away from the farms. More jobs were available in more places.
To an extent Clinton (via Gore in the Senate and VP) helped the information society grow. This allowed people to work from home which helped Western regions grow. Clinton afterall, did promise to create an information super-highway as part of the bridge to the 21st century. It also created the information sector of employment as growth was exponential and computing became a necessity for businesses and for some homes. Job growth soared.

Contrary to this, lack of building our infrastructure has resulted in no new job growth. Bush has been guilty of cutting growth for infrastructure and we have seen it as job growth has been stagnant for much of his term. As a result there is very little possibility for new jobs.
McCain's plan for job growth is exactly the same as Bush's. By cutting taxes amongst those likely to own businesses he expects it to create new jobs. Trickle down is the plan. However, as we can now see, job growth has not occurred but individual wealth amongst those receiving the most cuts has increased.
Basically to create jobs you need two things. Capital and infrastructure. McCain and Bush have done nothing nor plan anything for infrastructure. Capital may exist but it withers without potential for growth. In essence, you need to build first and then they will come. In other words, when the infrastructure is in place, it creates new industry and new growth as people take advantage of the opportunities for growth created by it. It only allows for growth up to the point where the infrastructure allows growth. Beyond that the businesses wait for the government to build the infrastructure before they invest in more growth. Simply investing in businesses doesn't create new jobs, it allows for the current jobs to be done more efficiently, thus eliminating jobs. However, trickle down does not create new factories, it only improves those that are in place. Infrastructure is needed to create new factories. And if you don't believe me you can look in your own home town. Many times a plant will request certain infrastructures are in place before they even come to your town. Highway access, shipping venues, easy transportation for shipping their products as well as sometimes improvements in airport are often asked for from plant owners. Many times these things are a condition needing to be met to build the factories.

Also, the concept of smaller government isn't always a good move. All growth in our infrastructure was from increases in government not decreases. In fact, the free market did not nor could not afford to bring about growth such as this. Who would have been able to build the rails for railroads? Who would have been able to build interstates? Who would have been able to spend the type of money to electrify America? FDR's works programs could not have happened because only the government could afford building the scope of projects that were built.
Capital was there, but the free market will not spend it on infrastructure because it doesn't directly help them. Instead businessmen wait for the government to create the infrastructure and then they pounce on it. Why build an interstate if you are a businessman. You would spend more money on it then you would see in return. So it then becomes necessary for the government to build the infrastructure. And quite frankly, this has always been a function of governments.

Okay, so that answers your direct question.
I suggest that you look at Obama's website for other exact plans. I also suggest you learn history and its practical applications.
Or you can look at McCain's site and you can see exactly if his plans reflect Bush's or if in fact they are different.
__________________
YES WE DID!!! AGAIN!!!

Last edited by bumbleroot; 09-06-2008 at 04:17 AM.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 04:18 AM   #13
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by bumbleroot View Post
Bush has been guilty of cutting growth for infrastructure and we have seen it as job growth has been stagnant for much of his term..
Way to parrot back blindly what Daddy O tells you without actually checking.

Just yesterday I was wondering if the "new improved" DNC was actually comprised of morons who couldn't read, or if they just assumed the rest of the country was morons who couldn't read and played down to them.

At the moment, unemployment is the highest it's been during the Bush administration yes. During the Bush administration. 6.3 being the cap under him...as compared to Clintons high of 7.5.

The average during Bush's precedency is 5.2 is the average during the last eight years.

average during the record breaking eight years previous: 5.2

So...by stagnant you mean...exactly as successful as Clinton?

It's bad policy for any RNC candidate to tie himself too closely to Bush, and there's no reason to defend him anymore, he's on the way out so it's easy enough, lacking any credible policy to attack the one guy in Washington who isn't bothering to defend himself. It works too as long as the people you're talking to can't or wont bother to read.

Cons know that libbies think they are stupid...do Libbies know that thier own candidate thinks they are stupid?
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 04:26 AM   #14
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
btw: Ike's average was 4.8, rose from 2.9 to over 6 during his term.

Couldn't find stats for the FDR years, I imagine employment did go up considerably during his terms.

I'm also aware of McCain's stances and how they differ and are similar to Bush. Accusing the asker of ignorance is a poor answer to a question.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 04:28 AM   #15
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
But, back on topic...so...infrastructure eh? So highways?

or just general "infrastructure"? Money to big businesses, tax incentives to conglomerates things like that to encourage setting up shop in the US?

The truth is, you didn't even ask and no one expected you too. Obama registered with the party and played along with whatever the party told him to and thats good enough. If anything 97% was a downfall, it means 3% change is far more 'reform' than you actually seem to want, just the talk about reform, actually doing it would be against the party rules.

But before you accuse me too much of wanting four more years of Bush you should know that when you do I'm planning to link the old posts of you fighting with cons on this board trying to tell them how different McCain is from Bush. (at least until the party lines instructed you to start saying they are the same).

Last edited by AjTaliesen; 09-06-2008 at 05:00 AM.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 05:42 AM   #16
Hoamonduh
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 503
www.ontheissues.org

includes quotes & voting records on all candidates
__________________
Hoamonduh Rangewereda <Fluffy Bunnies of Death>

The Duchess: Diamonds are of most value They say, that have pass'd through most jewellers hands.

Ferdinand: Whores, by that rule, are precious.

-The Duchess of Malfi Act 1, Scene 3 - John Webster 1614


"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
Hoamonduh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 06:23 AM   #17
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
At the moment, unemployment is the highest it's been during the Bush administration yes. During the Bush administration. 6.3 being the cap under him...as compared to Clintons high of 7.5.
Umm, Bush took over a low rate. It rose under his term. He is near that high again (despite changing the way the rate is done-not counting underemployed... those who quit looking and those working part time jobs) Clinton took over that high rate from Daddy Bush. It was 7.3% then by the way. It went down from then. To say that was his rate because he took it over is a load of crap. He started reducing it right away. According to your logic, Clinton should have immediately seen a drop of 2 points the month he took over and the high point that was there when he took over should have been entirely his doing.

If you want to look at what the presidents have done you need to look at the rate over their term to see if they grew it or shrunk it.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248
Let's see how this goes since 1948, Truman's second term.

Truman from 3.8% to 2.9% in Jan. '52 Went Down A residual of FDR's investments.
Ike from 2.9% to 6.6% Went Up
Kennedy/Johnson from 6.6% to 4.9% Went Down A residual of Ike's investments.
Johnson from 4.9% to 3.4% Went Down A residual of Ike's investments.
Nixon/Ford from 3.4% to 7.5% Went Up
Carter from 7.5% to 6.3% Went Down
Reagan from 6.3% to 5.4% Went Down
Bush Sr. from 5.4% to 7.3% Went Up
Clinton from 7.3% to 4.2% Went Down
Bush Jr. from 4.2% to 6.1% Went Up

Hmm, went down under EVERY Dem president. Go figure. I guess the Dems know nothing about creating jobs. Hmm, went up under all Republicunt presidents except Reagan. As far as the job growth and infrastructure. The interstate creation didn't start hitting until the mid to late 1960s. In which time there was a constant unemployment rate under 4%. That was the only infrastructure project that did not see immediate returns because of the lengthy time of the projects. It did however, contribute to the energy crisis in the mid 1970s.
Also, according to your logic, if using high and low points Reagan has the high point of 10.8%, Ike has the low point of 2.5%. So that would mean (according to you) that Reagan was the worst and Ike was the best. So how then are you even arguing infrastructure vs. trickle-down?
__________________
YES WE DID!!! AGAIN!!!
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 06:36 AM   #18
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
or just general "infrastructure"? Money to big businesses, tax incentives to conglomerates things like that to encourage setting up shop in the US?
Hard infrastructure. Bridges, rails, waterways, access roads, highways, energy access, plumbing access etc.
The truth is, you didn't even ask and no one expected you too. Obama registered with the party and played along with whatever the party told him to and thats good enough.
And this relates to your post how? All this does is show you are against his party. It doesn't show anything about his plans which you haven't looked up so you think they don't exist. So, just because you are too fucking lazy to look up his plans, don't assume they don't exist.
Shit, I haven't accused McCain of having no plans. He has them. I disagree with them. They are the same fucking plans that Bush has. So if you disagree with Obama's plans that is a legitimate means of arguing. But to say they don't exist because you haven't looked them up is just stupid.
__________________
YES WE DID!!! AGAIN!!!
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 06:49 AM   #19
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Here you go AJ. Instead of being lazy, you can see all of his issues and plans here. Now you don't have to enter a few more key strokes. Now tell me there are no plans. You can disagree with his plans. But to make a post insisting he has no plans because you are too lazy to look them up is stupid. Accept that you're lazy or do something about it. Don't sound like a fucking idiot. Maybe you're only interested in hearing soundbites. Forgive Obama for not giving you the soundbites you want to hear.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/defense/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/disabilities/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/family/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/rural/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/veterans/
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/
__________________
YES WE DID!!! AGAIN!!!

Last edited by bumbleroot; 09-06-2008 at 07:03 AM.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 07:02 AM   #20
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
What I would like to know AJ is what are McCain's plans for the following subjects...

Civil Rights
Disabilities
Faith
Family
Poverty
Service
Social Security
Women's issues

Now if you want to be fair I have not seen Obama's plans on crime. But in all honesty, isn't that a municipal issue? Of course McCain's plan is to defer it to the state and local governments for the most part. He does have some good ideas though.
I also haven't heard Obama speak about the Space program. Of course, if that ever becomes a strong test for the Presidency, we are in damned good shape.

And to be even more fair, McCain lists the 2nd Amendment as an issue. But there isn't a plan on that. Why would there be. Its either you support it or you don't. Obama has been unclear about this.

I'm planning to link the old posts of you fighting with cons on this board trying to tell them how different McCain is from Bush.
I don't think McCain is the same as Bush. He is more tolerant and also knows how to listen to others. He is not as stubborn or idealistic as Bush. Its just that his policies have all of a sudden started echoing Bush's. So, as I and many others have said, this McCain is not the same McCain from 2000. McCain's problem is the same problem that Kerry and Gore had, they are being controlled by their handlers.
I don't hate McCain either. I think he is a good man. But I do think he is exaggerating this whole maverick crap. He has given in to the party in order to win its nomination and he has become less an individual and more of a party hack. His campaign sounds a lot like Bush's now. Also, if McCain wins I would expect him to actually try to work across party lines and he may wind up scrapping a bit of what he says he would do. And quite frankly, I get the feeling a lot of Republicans feel that way about him as well, thus they are somewhat tepid about him.
__________________
YES WE DID!!! AGAIN!!!

Last edited by bumbleroot; 09-06-2008 at 12:26 PM.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 01:58 PM   #21
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
I have not seen either mention the second amendment other than Obama at the convention and he didn't take a difinitive stance other than to say that rights can be protected while still banning bazookas.



Now, back to the fun...how many times have run off at the mouth like a rabid chihuahua that Obama talks only issues and McCain is just personal attacks and soundbites? How many threads based on that topic?

Or uttered the phrase "four more years".

It's crap.

If you really want me to link McCains "plans" I can...though I dont think you actually do. You know where his website is as well as I do. Or In his case I could even give examples of what he's actually DONE rather than what he says he'll do when hes a big boy.

The one issue you brought to bear without having to run to his website was infrastructure and even that was unclear.

As to Clintons success at lowering unemployment...you're right. He was a good President for the economy. Many of us were even involved with that infrastructure though it wasn't some vague plans for "more infrastructure" it was actually a bit more specific: internet expansions being the largest. And to be fair, Gore did do allot of work with Darpa to bring that issue to the table.

My point is, and my ONLY point: Claims that McCain isn't talking issues and Obama is are crap. It's false and even worse: Obvious false.

And that saying McCain is "four more years" is moronic...and Obama's campaign staff KEEPS DOING IT. It might be good strategy though, even you were parroting it up until this thread when you found yourself in a position to have to back it up.
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 02:52 PM   #22
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by bumbleroot View Post
What I would like to know AJ is what are McCain's plans for the following subjects...

Civil Rights
Disabilities
Faith
Family
Poverty
Service
Social Security
Women's issues
Civil Rights: what the fuck? are there some laws on the books I'm unaware of that require federal attention, bumbles?

Women's issues: again, what the fuck? why is there a need for a "plan" for "women's issues?" Tell me bumbles, what do you consider a "women's issue?"
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 02:55 PM   #23
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
As a follow up to this, here is why McCain supports extending the bush tax cuts:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tax.../chart6_lg.gif

Notice how much tax burden is placed upon the wealthy in this nation.

Note how the Washington Post article fails to mention how much burden is placed upon the wealthy. The Washington Post notes that "the bottom three groups account for 60% of the taxpayers."

However, as you can see with the graphic depiction I've given above, those 60% pay a whopping 0.9% of all taxes in this nation.

So you have 60% of US Taxpayers paying less than 1% of all taxes in this country.

And what is Obama's plan?

TO PLACE AN EVEN HIGHER BURDEN ON THOSE WHO ALREADY PAY THE MAJORITY OF OUR NATION'S TAXES, LETTING THOSE 60% OF TAXPAYERS PAY EVEN LESS THAN THEY ALREADY DO --- LESS THAN 1%!
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 03:17 PM   #24
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by furo View Post
Civil Rights: what the fuck? are there some laws on the books I'm unaware of that require federal attention, bumbles?

Women's issues: again, what the fuck? why is there a need for a "plan" for "women's issues?" Tell me bumbles, what do you consider a "women's issue?"
Tampon disposal?
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2008, 04:04 PM   #25
AjTaliesen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,516
Obama's womens issues page is based on the NOW assumptions: health care, domestic violence, and abortion are womens issues.

As well as government programs to give grant money to corporations run by women.

McCain's platform addresses health care as a comprehensive issue as well as abortion.

Violence is considered a crime regardless of the identity of the victim.

He voted in favor of continuing federal funding for contracts which employ a minimum of 10% women, but voted against awarding money to corporations run by women, and against hiring practices based on race, gender, or naitonal origin.

The same issues are addressed, but not filed under the heading of "women's issues". It's a philisophical approach I don't disagree with: health care, domestic violence, and abortion are issues for everyone. On the other hand I can't fault Obama for filing it that way. At some point he does have to answer to NOW, as a strong fund raising wing of the party he represents (Bumbles claimed McCain had to bend some to accomodate the RNC as their nominee..Obama had to make similar concessions).
AjTaliesen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.