quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 30, 2008 13:28:58 GMT -5
What if McCain had some seedy ties?
What if he knew one of those Keating 5 guys? What if he WAS one of them? What if he sat on the board of the the U.S. Council for World Freedom? What if he was an adulterer? What if he had issues with gambling?
I'm not saying that any of these things would mean anything if they were true, but I mean it does bring up some questions about the person's judgment...
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 30, 2008 13:17:46 GMT -5
I don't think they're saying he's dangerous or fringe because of his last name. It's because of Khalidi's associations with dangerous individuals, such as a shady relationship with barack HUSSEIN obama.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 29, 2008 16:13:40 GMT -5
I think Ed makes a strong point about bipartisanship. Outside of the difficulties I brought up in even defining it or when to use it, is it inherently a good thing?
Bush's approval rating is at 22%. I don't think anyone would argue at this point that his presidency hasn't been a disaster. What is Pelosi's incentive for working well with him and to seek 'bipartisanship?'
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 29, 2008 11:55:26 GMT -5
Though Hastert had his positive moments of seeking bipartisanship (which have mostly now become looked over due to the myriad of controversies he was involved in over the last few years), the Speaker of the House of Representatives has never actually directed himself (or herself, including Pelosi) as Republican/Democrat blind.
I'm not saying Pelosi herself has been a good Speaker, but that the idea that her 'failure' to seek bipartisanship is somehow new or unique is not the case.
Furthermore (and this isn't a shot at you Elvado, more of a general point), I think the term 'bipartisanship' has basically become a neutered term. Both sides of the aisle moan and groan about the lack of it when they don't get their own way, but ignore it when they think they can get their way without the others' help.
Even if the term was always used genuinely, what is the desired role that bipartisanship should play? When the rhetoric is all pushed aside, there are often fundamental disagreements that the sides have on basic concepts and issues. Is the compromise to flex on the issue itself, or to allow Democrats to have their way on some issues and Republicans to have their way on others?
It's a term that can mean a lot of different things.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 29, 2008 10:40:47 GMT -5
Obama's tax plan has not changed its threshold. $250,000 or less won't see an increase. $150,000 or less will see a decrease.
Around $200,000, other factors (such as mortgage balance) will determine whether you see a decrease, or no change.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 28, 2008 11:13:41 GMT -5
Sorry but if you are not going to vote on a bill that you think is right because you're crying over a speech made, you have no business being in congress.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 28, 2008 11:09:17 GMT -5
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 27, 2008 16:05:15 GMT -5
He quoted Malcolm X?!?!?!? This changes everything!
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 27, 2008 15:06:02 GMT -5
It would be basically impossible for taxes to only pay for things that benefit everyone. And I do understand your view on taxes, but I think it's a much neater theory than it is a practice. How would you decide what is something that benefits everyone, and what is something that doesn't benefit enough people for taxes to go to it? A progressive tax system is by definition going to have people paying proportionately more for things they won't necessarily benefit more from.
Would you be in favor of something more along the lines of a flat tax without deductions? I think it's an interesting idea, and I've heard compelling arguments on both sides.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 27, 2008 14:49:22 GMT -5
So you're saying that it isn't fair for you to pay more taxes because it's going to help someone else and not you?
Can we at least all admit that this current jump on the idea of distributing or redistributing wealth is disingenuous and politically motivated? That's what taxes are.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 27, 2008 13:58:38 GMT -5
Why is it more harmful to try to ensure that the voter rolls are accurate, as opposed to a group whose "work" is deliberately making them inaccurate? . That would seem to be an easy call to make, but the options you present aren't the only things being argued here. Attempting to make sure voter rolls are accurate is not the problem. The problem is when that becomes a broad cover for a range of activities, some of which may not be legitimate (since we're talking theoritical here, I'll leave out examples). And Acorn as a group is not working to deliberately make them inaccurate. Individuals working for them are taking advantage of the incentives (more pay for more people signed up), and the group is attempting to stop that, fully cooperating with investigations. Even so, having 10 fake people that can't show up to vote being registered is LESS harmful than 1 person who should be allowed to vote and is stopped from doing so.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 27, 2008 11:45:49 GMT -5
Acorn does not equal Democrats. Further, the problems within Acorn are not going to tip the election; the microscopic focus on "Mickey Mouse" being registered is done to delegitimize the results if Obama wins. The idea that voter REGISTRATION fraud is going to tear the fabric of democracy (or whatever exact phrase McCain used) is absurd. Fraud is fraud and at any level should be noted, corrected and punished, but the impact of this fraud is not going to have any effect on the larger election. Without getting into too many specifics on voter suppression and caging, 'missing' early ballots and absentee ballots, voting machine problems and other issues, it can also be said that there are serious issues that Republicans need to face down from their side in this election.
No election is going to be perfect, and individual people on both sides of the aisle are no doubt working to bend/break rules to give their side an edge. But the impact that the different things have on the election are more important than how outraged a side decides to become.
In my opinion (and this is just based on what I've been able to get my hands on, I don't claim to be an expert), the tactics used by the right are more dangerous to a fair election than those used by the left. HOWEVER, not having the ability to see all fraud in all its manners as it happens across the country on all levels, I cannot say who is 'stretching the limits' more.
Much more evidence is going to be needed until either side should be able to comfortably demand that their opponents concede to an idea like that (especially something as broad and undefined as 'stretching the limits').
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 24, 2008 13:31:27 GMT -5
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 24, 2008 10:47:30 GMT -5
Please, please provide examples. What makes Obama worse in this respect than McCain?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 24, 2008 9:03:36 GMT -5
And with that horrible opening post I uh...sure meant it to go this route.....my plan all along!
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 23, 2008 22:46:47 GMT -5
Sorry, the gap between what I mean and what I say is sometimes pretty large.
I mean the idea that what might benefit you right now individually may be at odds with your 'patriotism' (for lack of a better term).
I'm voting Obama because I'm in a low tax bracket and will save more money under him than McCain, but I believe McCain's foreign policy will create a safer America for my children OR I'm voting McCain because I think his economic policies are more favorable for the business I'd like to start, but I think that Obama's healthcare plan will better allow this country to fulfill its ideals.
Of course you can agree with one candidate across all issues. You may even speak in less ridiculous and inflated terms than the horrible examples I provided.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 23, 2008 21:32:43 GMT -5
Who should be the next President of the United States? Why?
The question of why applies to both You the individual You the American
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 23, 2008 16:42:02 GMT -5
You stated before that there are some things that government should be in, the question is where to draw the line. Then, in your list of things Obama wants government to be involved in, you list
"health care, college education, ending poverty, ending disease."
He is NOT, NOT saying that government should be the only way to address these issues. So that part of what you're saying is false. Additionally, if government shouldn't be involved in these things, what SHOULD it be involved in besides "building roads" and defense?
You are applying these fluid standards to say Obama has these socialist tendencies (or that he's a 'big government' guy). But applying the vague standards you're talking about, name an elected official outside of Ron Paul who wouldn't be considered a 'big government' politician.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 23, 2008 15:23:49 GMT -5
"The thing that really keeps the Canadian health care system functioning though, is that in the event of emergency, their people that matter can always come to the U.S. and get the treatment they need. When the U.S. succumbs to socialized health care, where are the Americans going to go?"
Mexico?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 23, 2008 14:27:21 GMT -5
Furthermore, what gets lost in having to sift through that junk is a good legitimate discussion. You have in your post the quote
"Government is inherently inefficient. The goal should be to minimize government as much as possible, while still providing the necessary services -- law enforcement, road construction and repair, National security and defense etc... "
That is one way of looking at the relationship between the roles of government and the roles of the private sector. Whether that specific way 'should' be goal actually would be an interesting and productive topic to discuss. Not splicing Obama's policies until a part of them fits into a pseudo future-socialist People's Republic of the United States.
|
|