Politics in General (national, international, local, statewide)

[AddictedToSpace]

Originally Posted by Roark

What is your point.

My point is that McCain flips on all the important topics. He will say what he thinks will get him elected.

[Hia-leah JDM]

Originally Posted by Roark

What is your point. Wealthy people have always paid more taxes. I haven't read a single poster on this forum say they shouldn't or don't. McCain is correct.
Obama, wants to increase the burden EVEN MORE to "spread it around".

For the undecided people that are thinking about these ideas, be sure to know that McCain voted against Bush's tax cut while we were at at war and running a deficit.
He may support extending the cuts now that it looks like we may be heading into a recession.
Nothing particularly ironic or dumbheaded about the reasoning. I believe we can cut taxes AND spending during wartime. So McCain and I disagree, but that's okay.

Obama voted against the Bush tax cuts, and he wants to increase taxes on business owner's to "spread the wealth around".

Taxing the productive people in this county to incentivize the not-as-productive to vote for their money rather than work for it is disgusting.

What a horrible burden for the rich guys.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by AddictedToSpace

My point is that McCain flips on all the important topics. He will say what he thinks will get him elected.

Hmmm...
Well, the examples that you used don't prove your point.
You used two different scenarios, and McCain chose two different paths.
If you used the same scenario, and McCain chose two different paths, then you would have made your point.

[AddictedToSpace]

Originally Posted by Roark

Hmmm...
Well, the examples that you used don't prove your point.
You used two different scenarios, and McCain chose two different paths.
If you used the same scenario, and McCain chose two different paths, then you would have made your point.

My friend the other path is the McCain/Palin 2008 ticket.

McCain on Meet the Press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYsKiA3Myyw

[AddictedToSpace]

Doesn't it bother anyone else when some one says "My Friend" when they are clearly not your friend.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by AddictedToSpace

Are you saying we are not at war right now?

No, of course not. There are two wars going on right now. I've acknowledge that when pointing out how illogical it is hire a Junior Senator with ZERO military experience for the Commander in Chief job when there is clearly a more experienced and tested applicant for the job.

Originally Posted by AddictedToSpace

Do you believe the war we are currently in did not partly lead to this recession?

I love your questions!! No. History will prove that wars have lead to economic expansion, they do not cause the economy to receed.

Originally Posted by AddictedToSpace

Do you believe that by staying Iraq spending 10 Billion a week we will balance the budget in four years?

Wow...I don't like that question so much because I can't decipher what you are asking. First of all. If we are spending $10B per week, that would be $5.2Trillion per year or 36% of our Country's Gross Domestic Product ($13.8Trillion was 2007's GDP).
We aren't spending $10Billion a week. Your talking point should have been $10B a month. If you were using that figure, the war costs about 9% of our total production.
So, if you are asking, if I believe that we can balance the budget and simultaneously spend 9% of our GDP on a war. I say yes.
If I can reduce my household budget by 10%, then the government should be able to reduce their budget by 9% if necessary.
John McCain didn't believe we could when he voted against the Bush tax cut.
Now that the global economic climate dictates that Americans hold on to as much of their money as they can to whether an economic crisis, he has said that he will fight to keep the tax cuts in place. The question has changed, and so has his answer.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by AddictedToSpace

Doesn't it bother anyone else when some one says "My Friend" when they are clearly not your friend.

No, not at all. It is a characteristic of a well mannered and confident man. Human decency and niceities of that nature tend to be the mark of polite and diplomatic Americans.

[AddictedToSpace]

Originally Posted by Roark

No, not at all. It is a characteristic of a well mannered and confident man. Human decency and niceities of that nature tend to be the mark of polite and diplomatic Americans.

Yes and I'm sure calling your wife a C*nt is sign of human decency and confidence.

Roark, you have made up your mind. I've made up my mind and already voted. We are not going to agree. So let just end this now. We will have our day in eight days from now. Good night.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by AddictedToSpace

Yes and I'm sure calling your wife a C*nt is sign of human decency and confidence.

Another great post, my friend.

[Endeavor305]

Originally Posted by Roark

Hmmm...
Well, the examples that you used don't prove your point.
You used two different scenarios, and McCain chose two different paths.
If you used the same scenario, and McCain chose two different paths, then you would have made your point.

Now what?

[FIDEL CASTRO]

Now I see who were the people responsible for closing my thread.

Classy.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

Now what?[/URL]

Wow, that is incredible. There are excerpts of John McCain from 8 years ago and even further in the past. Can you find some video of Barrack Obama in a leadership role from 8 years ago? I tried...can't find much on him except for that wealth distribution interview.
Has Barrack Obama ever changed his mind about anything important 8 years ago? I can't find the answer.
Better question, has Barrack Obama EVER effected anything important. EVER.
Honestly, Endeavor...if I posted Barrack Obama's name in the Miami Midtown thread 3 years ago would you know who Barrack Obama was?
3 years ago, more people on this forum knew ICE than knew Barrack Obama.
ICE was a slick design and really looked good on paper. Many people were sold on it, but it never lived up to the promise.

I'm still trying to learn about Senator Obama...this is what Wikipedia offers:

In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of eighty editors.[21] Obama's election as the first black president of the Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.[21] The publicity from his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations.[25] In an effort to recruit him to their faculty, the University of Chicago Law School provided Obama with a fellowship and an office to work on his book.[25] The manuscript was finally published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.[25]

So THAT is it! He was given a pubishing contract, and instead of writing it in one year, it took 5 years. Oh, the adversity! What an amazing American.

Last year he made $4.5 Million from his book, and for the first time in her life Mrs. Obama was proud to be an American. Of course she should be proud, but for the "first time"????

What an inspiration that then Proffessor Obama is. Lazy ass McCain was just laying around for 5 years in a cage getting beat all day after his airplane was shot down during wartime. Then that "old man" served two terms in the House of Representatives and then many as Senator.

Is there more to Obama? Of course...but we are hiding that New Party stuff.

[Hia-leah JDM]

Like Ive said, experience is a sack of bricks, its fluff, its nada.

But lets go anyways and vote for the old man because he was a POW.

[Endeavor305]

Originally Posted by Roark

I'm still trying to learn about Senator Obama...this is what Wikipedia offers:

So THAT is it! He was given a pubishing contract, and instead of writing it in one year, it took 5 years. Oh, the adversity! What an amazing American.

Roark, if you look back into history...the trully great ones come out of "nowhere". I'm not guaranteeing he will be the best or even a great president. All I'm saying is he has all the makings of one so far. He has convinced me that he has a plan and a vision of greatness for this country. He also brings a change and spirit that we need at this time. That and McCain is old, more of the same and in my opinion not the better candidate.

What you need to realize about Obama is that he has had all the chips stacked against him throughout his American life and political career. He's black and has a name of middle eastern desent. To overcome these BIG obstacles AND also beat out Hilary to me says alot about his judgement, persistence, saviness, dedication and overall character.

Originally Posted by Roark

What an inspiration that then Proffessor Obama is. Lazy ass McCain was just laying around for 5 years in a cage getting beat all day after his airplane was shot down during wartime.

You said in another thread, I believe it was the Bayside Lounge, that McCain used to get punched in the head everyday for 5 years. Assuming that didn't cause any permanent damage (let's hope but sometimes it's hard to tell), why does that qualify him to be president? BTW, that war he was a POW of was 40 years ago. So do the math on how old he is now. It's a fact that the mind deteriorates with age, such as the rest of the body.

Originally Posted by Roark

Is there more to Obama? Of course...but we are hiding that New Party stuff.

Sorry for having to say this, but that is a dumb comment on your part. He's a democrat. He isn't for some secret party. Or a terrorist. Or whatever other scare tactics conservatives try to use. And even if he was, how would you know? Did you have dinner and sleep over his house last night? You even gave away that you went to wikipedia to find more since you didn't know anything about him. Now all of a sudden you know everything about him and all his secrets? Give me a break. The problem with republican/conservatives is they just can't admit Obama is the better candidate. For many it's race, for others it's greed, let's not kid ourselves anymore. Good night.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

Sorry for having to say this, but that is a dumb comment on your part. He's a democrat. He isn't for some secret party.

You can look it up. It isn't a secret party at all. The New Party is real, and was important to Obama's ascendancy in Illinois politics.

Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate -- let's call him Barack Obama -- received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama's New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.
The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the New Party was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful. "After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century .... In 1996, it helped Chicago's Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district .... The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued."

Obama downplays this. But it helps for Independents to know what kind of alliances and partnerships that Obama has chosen in the past.

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

Or a terrorist. Or whatever other scare tactics conservatives try to use. And even if he was, how would you know?

I have not, nor have I met anyone who has called Obama a terrorist. He has, in fact, chosen to ally himself with an admitted and non-repentant terrorist.

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

You even gave away that you went to wikipedia to find more since you didn't know anything about him.

That's not true. I know a lot about Obama. I was asking the posters on this forum if they had a clue about who Obama was 3 years ago.
Don't be ashamed, if you didn't.
It seems that you think that the New Party is a secret party. It was, in fact, a real party, although ruled unconstitutional.
I don't know everything about Obama, I know more about Obama than most of his supporters. For whatever reason, there isn't much reporting on Obama's past.

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

The problem with republican/conservatives is they just can't admit Obama is the better candidate.

Really, that is the problem with Republicans and Conservatives (Endeavor, <<<<they are two different things)
Obama is a better speaker. He is a sharp dresser. He has out raised McCain's by millions of dollars.
For the job of fundraiser, preacher, maybe trial attorney, he would be my man. He is not my candidate for Commander in Chief.
His comments about the Constitution of the United States in the following interview do trouble me.
Listen closely. He is talking about "redistributive change".
Posting Obama's own words isn't intended to "scare" anyone, it is there to educate people about the applicant for our US President.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
Redistribution of wealth...
Europeans call it Socialism, Americans call it Welfare, Obama calls it Change.

[Endeavor305]

In a couple of years when Obama (as president) has turned the economy around and restored national pride, all of these will be you:




And everyone who told you so will be:

[Paul305]

Can we all just agree on one thing: that Palin is dangerously uninformed and lacks the fundamental knowledge of world history and politics necessary to be VP?

She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was and she didn't know whether or not the U.S. supports Hezbollah. I don't care if she has been 'filled in' on these issues. The fact that she didn't know them in the first place shows that she's not ready to hold office.

Also, on a side note. I've always wondered why Republicans call themselves 'Federalists' all the time. Is it an abbreviation of Anti-Federalists or are they just unaware of the fact that Federalism and Anti-Federalism are opposites and that they are in fact Anti-Federalists? Just wondering...

[Roark]

Originally Posted by Paul305

Also, on a side note. I've always wondered why Republicans call themselves 'Federalists' all the time. Is it an abbreviation of Anti-Federalists or are they just unaware of the fact that Federalism and Anti-Federalism are opposites and that they are in fact Anti-Federalists? Just wondering...

Not sure, but it might date back to the Founding Fathers. This from Thomas Jefferson in the First Inaugural Address
In the Washington, D.C. Wednesday, March 4, 1801

But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

[Paul305]

Originally Posted by Roark

Not sure, but it might date back to the Founding Fathers. This from Thomas Jefferson in the First Inaugural Address
In the Washington, D.C. Wednesday, March 4, 1801

Good find. I think I figured it out. It actually has nothing to do with the Federalist or Anti-Federalist parties. They are actually referring to "New Federalism" which is essentially the opposite of traditional Federalism. Can't find any good sources though.

[xerxesjc28]

HAHA the title of this thread made me laugh. "Miami politics: keep it clean" isn't that an oxymoron, that is Miami politics being "clean".