# McCain is the Greatest Flip Flopper of all time



## midcan5 (Jul 2, 2008)

"Fortune: Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic that if John McCain circa 2007 were running against John McCain circa 2000, he would call John McCain 2000 a Communist."

McCain goes over to the dark side - Los Angeles Times

"Meanwhile, McCain is going around saying things like, "I take stands on principle, and I don't switch positions depending on what audience or what time it is in the electoral calendar." Apparently we're supposed to swallow the notion that Barack Obama's (short) list of policy reversals is entirely motivated by political calculation, while the extremely long list of issues where McCain has moved right since 2004 is a response to "changed circumstances.""

McCain Responds to Chait, Chait Responds to McCain - The Plank

"Long-time readers know that Ive been emphasizing John McCains dozens of major policy flip-flops for months now, hoping that this would a) catch on as a campaign issue; and b) undermine McCains unearned reputation for principled stands on the issues."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html


----------



## Gunny (Jul 2, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> "Fortune: Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic that if John McCain circa 2007 were running against John McCain circa 2000, he would call John McCain 2000 a Communist."
> 
> McCain goes over to the dark side - Los Angeles Times
> 
> ...




Long-time readers know you are a lost in the sauce, uber-leftwingnut who spews baseless accusations against anything to the right of you on a regular basis.  

You killed your own credibility LONG ago.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Jul 2, 2008)

John McCain is the Manchurian Candidate.


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 2, 2008)

it is called nuance and refinement of posistion based on reason and new information.....


----------



## busara (Jul 3, 2008)

"I take stands on principle, and I don't switch positions depending on what audience or what time it is in the electoral calendar." 

this quote made me laugh quite heavily. oh mccain, you sure are entertaining.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jul 3, 2008)

I can't think of anything McCain has directly flipflopped on offhand. You have any examples?

For instance, he said he was against the GWB tax cuts when Bush was first trying to pass them.

Now he says he want's to keep the tax cuts. Well, duh, we were not in or near a recession when he was first against the tax cuts. Increasing tax rates during a recession is a recipe for a depression.

He (quite smartly) was against ethanol back then, too, because at the time and to a degree even today the ethnaol business is a hoax. But now that oil and hence gas is through the roof, ethanol and other biofuels become more compelling to use.

These are not flipflops.

Flipflops are what Obama is famous for: The handgun ban is constitutional, next the same handgun ban is no longer constitutional. Did the fucking constitution change Odumba? First Obama challenges anyone else to take public financing if he did, and McCain accept his challenge. Then Obama backs out on his deal. Has public financing changed? Nope. But he says that public financing is flaud, not that he now knows he can get a lot of private donors. 

Those are flipflops.


----------



## busara (Jul 3, 2008)

a quick search found this

How Insane Is John McCain?: McCain's Flip Flops (the definitive tally)


----------



## nomdeplume (Jul 3, 2008)

I counted maybe one flipflop out of all of those, though I really did merely scan the last third of the page or so. The flipflop was on Roe v Wade.

Every week or so Obama flipflops more than McCain does in a decade of politics.


----------



## Anguille (Jul 3, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I can't think of anything McCain has directly flipflopped on offhand. You have any examples?
> .



Torture.


----------



## Anguille (Jul 3, 2008)

greenpartyaz said:


> John McCain is the Manchurian Candidate.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Long-time readers know you are a lost in the sauce, uber-leftwingnut who spews baseless accusations against anything to the right of you on a regular basis.
> 
> You killed your own credibility LONG ago.



I think you are mistaking me for someone who cares what you think. 

*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 3, 2008)

manu1959 said:


> it is called nuance and refinement of posistion based on reason and new information.....



Wow, a weaker excuse for flip flopping was never heard. Let's be honest here, McCain had no choice, the republican party is a sect today.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rio6xL8XFZw]YouTube - Cafferty: The McCain Flip-Flop[/ame]


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*

>


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Long-time readers know you are a lost in the sauce, uber-leftwingnut who spews baseless accusations against anything to the right of you on a regular basis.
> 
> You killed your own credibility LONG ago.



what makes us mad is that we liked moderate mccain.  he demonstrated that he knows right from wrong. some people think he's only pretending to be a right wing nut because its his only chance.  without th dumb ass vote, its not even close.

and I don't think he'll flip back to the good john mccain.  he has lobbyists running and financing his political machine.

face it, you have no credibility.  I can guess your position on every issue without even talking to you.  I just have to listen to rush, o'reily or glenn beck.

me, I like olbermann.


----------



## busara (Jul 4, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I counted maybe one flipflop out of all of those, though I really did merely scan the last third of the page or so. The flipflop was on Roe v Wade.
> 
> Every week or so Obama flipflops more than McCain does in a decade of politics.



guess you didnt read any of that page, or simply wont admit that he has switched opinions. your bias is getting in the way of your comprehension skills again


----------



## nomdeplume (Jul 4, 2008)

busara said:


> guess you didnt read any of that page, or simply wont admit that he has switched opinions. your bias is getting in the way of your comprehension skills again



No bias. I just know the facts, unlike you, surrounding most of those things, and almost none of them qualify as a flipflop. IMO, a flipflop requires a change of opinion on something where the applicable environment regarding the opion has not changed since the first opinion was formed. Similarily, I don't consider Obama a flipflopper on his recent backing off of getting us immediately out of Iraq because the surge is working quite well and he'd be a fool to do it.


----------



## jillian (Jul 4, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> "Fortune: Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic that if John McCain circa 2007 were running against John McCain circa 2000, he would call John McCain 2000 a Communist."
> 
> McCain goes over to the dark side - Los Angeles Times
> 
> ...



These are in living color...

I always find it amusing that flip flops only matter to the right when they're on the other side, but whatchagonnado?

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 4, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> and I don't think he'll flip back to the good john mccain.  he has lobbyists running and financing his political machine.



I agree with you, it is a shame for both parties that the whole ordeal of running for president became a show of who can appear like everyone's favorite single issue promoter.

Bageant in 'Deer Hunting with Jesus' notes even the uneducated know what the important issues are, the trick is getting them to think of them and not the other BS when voting. 

Author Joe Bageant


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

jillian said:


> These are in living color...
> 
> I always find it amusing that flip flops only matter to the right when they're on the other side, but whatchagonnado?
> 
> YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.



Oh and I guess....
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/07/03/more-obama-flip-flops-media-will-ignore
Everyone can add two more Obama flip-flops to the ever-growing list.  Obama managed to make a full circle twist on the war in Iraq.  After gathering the liberal masses on his promise to quickly withdraw troops from Iraq, now that its time to tack to the center he makes a full reversal.  In his words, he has always held the right to "refine" his position on Iraq depending on circumstances.

&#8220;I&#8217;ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I&#8217;m sure I&#8217;ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.&#8221;&#8230;

&#8220;My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I&#8217;ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we&#8217;ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.&#8221;

He added, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.&#8221;


It's official. *The Obama campaign has entered John Kerry territory when it comes to changing positions on Iraq.*


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: *"Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."*
Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he *"strongly disagreed" *with the ruling because it "dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

Public financing, meeting with leaders without pre-conditions, welfare reform.....and the list of Obama flip flops goes on and on......

I will give you that MCcain has changed his position on certain things. While MCcain has changed positions, his changing of positions have occured over 30 years of national public service. While Obama's flip flops have occured in this election cycle....which is worse?


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 4, 2008)

The trouble with comparing flip flops is substance but given the rhetorical network of the right it will seem to some and the dumb that Obama is worse and so it goes....

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html

*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> The trouble with comparing flip flops is substance but given the rhetorical network of the right it will seem to some and the dumb that Obama is worse and so it goes....
> 
> http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html
> 
> *A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*



Substance?

But his shift on public finance is hardly shocking when taken in the context of his many other major (and some minor) flip-flops. 

I just ask you to consider the common thread underlying all of these turnarounds (though just a partial list): 

a) his condemnation of union contributions to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns as "special interest money" but his eager acceptance of such money for himself as coming from representatives of the "working people"; 

b) his flip on ending (January 2004) then retaining (August 2007) the Cuba embargo; 

c) his March 2004 statement that opposed a crackdown on businesses hiring illegal immigrants, compared with his Jan. 31, 2008, debate statement endorsing such a crackdown; 

d) his advocating the decriminalization of marijuana in January 2004 versus his Oct. 30, 2007, position opposing its decriminalization; 

e) his jaw-dropping same-day flip on having Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel; 

f) his shameless reversal on NAFTA; 

g) his nearly immediate backtracking on whether Iran poses a serious threat to America; 

h) his progressive position shifts on Iraq  as documented by Peter Wehner and Michael Barone  from "don't go in, stay in, and get out"; 

i) and his vigorous defense then abandonment of both his pastor and his church. 

The common thread, in a word, is expedience. It is not toughness; it is not savvy; it is not gravitas; and by all means, it is not admirable. 

That's just a few Obama flip flops....there are many more...


----------



## editec (Jul 4, 2008)

The charge that this politican or that one (of either party) is a "flip-flopper" while satisfying to the charger, isn't one that really makes much sense.

Who does NOT want leaders willing to change their opinions when cicumstances warrant that if they don't change them, disaster ensues?

McCain HAS changed his opinions on things to be sure.

While I don't agree with his changes, while I think he reasons for making these changes are political and not practical, attacking him (OR OBAMA) for such changes really demands that we understand why they say they have changed.

The devil is in the DETAILS, folks.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jul 4, 2008)

editec said:


> The charge that this politican or that one (of either party) is a "flip-flopper" while satisfying to the charger, isn't one that really makes much sense.
> 
> Who does NOT want leaders willing to change their opinions when cicumstances warrant that if they don't change them, disaster ensues?
> 
> ...




For someone making a life in politics, in partituclar running for the highest office in the country, I would argue that "political changes" are "practical changes". Obama's flipflopping has gone beyong the pale of just a little politcal expendiency, however. He has become a pathological liar. First he wants to end the embargo on his communist pals in Cuba, then he wants to keep them as soon as he is talking to a sea of Cuban faces that know full well what a piece of shit Castro is. "Iran is not a significant threat", the day later "Iran is a grave threat and I've been saying so for years". "I never heard anything controversial in my church", and then a day later he says he did "hear some controverial things occassionally".

These changes are not a result of years of thought on them or a changing situation, they are the pathetic flailings of a complete fraud and a pathological liar.


----------



## Nate Peele (Jul 4, 2008)

Other than these very few flip flops I can't see anything McCain has ever changed on:

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he&#8217;s against it.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20... 
* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offsho... 
* McCain thought Bush&#8217;s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15781.htm... * McCain defended &#8220;privatizing&#8221; Social Security. Now he says he&#8217;s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15863.htm... * McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn&#8217;t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/10/mccain-flips-o... 
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15825.htm... * He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion,he called it &#8220;one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.&#8221;
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15864.htm... * McCain said he would &#8220;not impose a litmus test on any nominee.&#8221; He used to promise the opposite.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/now-mccain-is-flip-f... 
* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration&#8217;s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20... 
* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/28/mccains-abo... /
* McCain supported moving &#8220;toward normalization of relations&#8221; with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15617.htm... * McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15557.htm... * McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15564.htm... 
* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn&#8217;t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/mccains-97-lob... 
* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn&#8217;t.http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15633.htm... * McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn&#8217;t.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15699.htm... *McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a&#8220;&#8216;read my lips&#8217; candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?&#8221; referring to George H.W. Bush&#8217;s 1988 pledge. &#8220;No new taxes,&#8221; McCain responded.Two weeks later, McCain said, &#8220;I&#8217;m not making a &#8216;read my lips&#8217; statement, in that I will not raise taxes.&#8221;
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14761.htm... * McCain is both for and against a &#8220;rogue state rollback&#8221; as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/mccain-... 
* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry&#8217;s Democratic ticket in 2004.http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14818.htm... *In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won&#8217;t commit to supporting a regulation bill he&#8217;s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris&#8217; former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15033.htm... * McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15337.htm... * McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15370.htm... * McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15358.htm... * McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
Think Progress  McCain Tries To Run From Bush, One Day After Declaring &#8216;Great Progress Economically&#8217; During Bush&#8217;s Tenure... /
* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.Think Progress  McCain Falsely Claims He Has &#8216;Never Asked For A Single Earmark Or Pork Barrel Project&#8217; For His State /

*McCain&#8217;s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn&#8217;t be &#8220;rewarded&#8221; for acting&#8220;irresponsibly.&#8221;His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15176.htm... * McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16mccain.... * In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/emtimeem-has-m... 
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty&#8217;s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/31/mccain-... /
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants&#8217; kids who graduate from high school. Now he&#8217;s against it.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/oct/31/mccain-... /
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14447.htm... *In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving&#8220;feedback&#8221; on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9658.html * McCain said before the war in Iraq, &#8220;We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.&#8221; Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was &#8220;probably going to be long and hard and tough.&#8221;
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral... *McCain said he was the &#8220;greatest critic&#8221; of Rumsfeld&#8217;s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as&#8220;a mission accomplished.&#8221; In March 2004, he said, &#8220;I&#8217;m confident we&#8217;re on the right course.&#8221;In December 2005, he said, &#8220;Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.&#8221;
Think Progress  McCain: &#8216;I Was The Greatest Critic&#8217; Of The Iraq War Over The Last Four Years... /
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade Media Matters - Despite McCain&#39;s many hedges, Borger asserted that "[n]o one would accuse McCain of equivocating on anything" to saying the exact opposite.Think Progress  McCain Flip-Flops, Supports Immediate Reversal of Roe v. Wade /
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn&#8217;t be allowed.http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/mcc... * McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as &#8220;an agent of intolerance&#8221; in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans &#8220;deserved&#8221; the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6988.html * McCain used to oppose Bush&#8217;s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6731.html * On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were &#8220;too tilted to the wealthy.&#8221; By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/us/politics/03mccain.... *In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending &#8220;dirty money&#8221; to help finance Bush&#8217;s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
ABC News: Gearing Up for '08? McCain Befriends Old Enemies 
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.The New York Sun... /
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070115/pl_usnw/dnc__mcca... * McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8313.html * McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he&#8217;s pro-ethanol.
MTP Transcript for Nov. 12 - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com /
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.Media Matters - Despite McCain&#39;s many hedges, Borger asserted that "[n]o one would accuse McCain of equivocating on anything" * McCain decided in 2000 that he didn&#8217;t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he &#8220;would taint the image of the&#8216;Straight Talk Express.&#8217;&#8221; Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
Think Progress  In Shift To Right, McCain Embraces Henry Kissinger /
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and acorrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.Think Progress  In Shift To Right, McCain Embraces Henry Kissinger /
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20... * McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won&#8217;t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8066.html 




* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving &#8220;feedback&#8221; on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 4, 2008)

Nate Peele said:


> Other than these very few flip flops I can't see anything McCain has ever changed on:
> 
> * McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now hes against it.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
> * McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offsho...
> ...



Over 30 years in public office a senator is going to change his positions, times change. But to change your positions as many times as Obama has in one election cycle is akin to Kerry. Besides Obama not only flip flops he flat out lies, promising public financing then backing out of public financing.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 5, 2008)

The arguments here that McCain is not a flip flopper tax the imagination, they demonstrate if one is a partisan hack and is shown proof, their opinion still does not change proving that reason has nothing to do with wingnuts.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 5, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> The arguments here that McCain is not a flip flopper tax the imagination, they demonstrate if one is a partisan hack and is shown proof, their opinion still does not change proving that reason has nothing to do with wingnuts.



He has changed his positions over time which in itself isn't flip flopping. Obama saying I will accept public funding then completely backing out is not only flip flopping but is a complete lie.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> He has changed his positions over time which in itself isn't flip flopping. Obama saying I will accept public funding then completely backing out is not only flip flopping but is a complete lie.


He had some qualifiers in his initial statement which gives him wiggle room.. now by your own accord you must apply the same argument to McCain and public financing for the primary... If McCain couldnt stick to public financing when the law told him he must.. how can we be sure that he would stick to his word in the general election...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> He had some qualifiers in his initial statement which gives him wiggle room.. now by your own accord you must apply the same argument to McCain and public financing for the primary... *If McCain couldnt stick to public financing when the law told him he must.. *how can we be sure that he would stick to his word in the general election...



The law never told him he must stick to public financing....Mccain chose to stick to public financing in the general election.

Obama stated that he always had supported public financing and that he would definitely be taking public funding. Until it became politically advantageous for him to deny public funding. Then he had no problem lying about public financing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 6, 2008)

g. d. the rich and ignorant American voters that are so selfish or stupid.  see, I don't know how to come at you because I would come at you differently if you had a million in the bank.  but chances are you are broke just too proud to admit you've been conned.  see, they got you arguing wedge issues, and look at mccain.  able and willing to flip to the neo cons side of every argument so he doesn't loose your dumb ass vote. 

they conned the idiot in 2000 and again in 2004.  now all mccain has to hope for is racist america to raly him to victory.  if it weren't for ignorance in w. virginia.....

that's all I ned to know.  i'm on the opoosite side of w. virginia so I know i'm right.  litmus test beeach.


----------



## Chris (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Over 30 years in public office a senator is going to change his positions, times change. But to change your positions as many times as Obama has in one election cycle is akin to Kerry. Besides Obama not only flip flops he flat out lies, promising public financing then backing out of public financing.



 In three sentences you just flipfloped on the idea of flipflopping.


----------



## busara (Jul 6, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> No bias. I just know the facts, unlike you, surrounding most of those things, and almost none of them qualify as a flipflop. IMO, a flipflop requires a change of opinion on something where the applicable environment regarding the opion has not changed since the first opinion was formed. Similarily, I don't consider Obama a flipflopper on his recent backing off of getting us immediately out of Iraq because the surge is working quite well and he'd be a fool to do it.



according to your definition any reversal would not be a flip flop, because the environment is constantly changing, be it big or small. get off your high horse for once and try to realize that you dont know everything. course i know you wont. your act is getting quite tired.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> g. d. the rich and ignorant American voters that are so selfish or stupid.  see, I don't know how to come at you because I would come at you differently if you had a million in the bank.  but chances are you are broke just too proud to admit you've been conned.  see, they got you arguing wedge issues, and look at mccain.  able and willing to flip to the neo cons side of every argument so he doesn't loose your dumb ass vote.
> 
> they conned the idiot in 2000 and again in 2004.  now all mccain has to hope for is racist america to raly him to victory.  if it weren't for ignorance in w. virginia.....
> 
> that's all I ned to know.  i'm on the opoosite side of w. virginia so I know i'm right.  litmus test beeach.



All you have to do is grab a dictionary and a 9th grade grammar book to find out who is truly ignorant. I agree MCcain has changed positions over 30 years. Obama has flip flopped on about every major issue just in this election cycle.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 6, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> g. d. the rich and ignorant American voters that are so selfish or stupid.  see, I don't know how to come at you because I would come at you differently if you had a million in the bank.  but chances are you are broke just too proud to admit you've been conned.  see, they got you arguing wedge issues, and look at mccain.  able and willing to flip to the neo cons side of every argument so he doesn't loose your dumb ass vote.
> 
> they conned the idiot in 2000 and again in 2004.  now all mccain has to hope for is racist america to raly him to victory.  if it weren't for ignorance in w. virginia.....
> 
> that's all I ned to know.  i'm on the opoosite side of w. virginia so I know i'm right.  litmus test beeach.



Y'know ... first I look at your post.  Then I take particular note that somewhere in that incoherent drivel of a post you actually have the temerity to call ANYONE ELSE an idiot.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The law never told him he must stick to public financing....Mccain chose to stick to public financing in the general election.
> 
> Obama stated that he always had supported public financing and that he would definitely be taking public funding. Until it became politically advantageous for him to deny public funding. Then he had no problem lying about public financing.


Youre forgetting Obamas quotes on 527s.. Now on McCains bailing on public funds during the primary after securing a bank loan based on public funding youre dead wrong... there is actually a court case pending dumbass..


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Youre forgetting Obamas quotes on 527s.. Now on McCains bailing on public funds during the primary after securing a bank loan based on public funding youre dead wrong... there is actually a court case pending dumbass..



What Obama quotes about 527's are you referring to?

Is this the suit you are referring to?

The Republican National Committee dismissed the DNC's claims Tuesday, saying "the same frivolous lawsuit was thrown out of court over a month ago." 

"*The law states that a candidate must actually receive public funds to be subject to the primary campaign spending limit. The McCain campaign never received any primary matching funds, and the campaign's lending bank has made clear that no entitlements to public funds were used as collateral to secure any loan,"* RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross said in a statement. 
Washington Times - Senate confirms five new nominees to FEC


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> What Obama quotes about 527's are you referring to?
> 
> Is this the suit you are referring to?
> 
> ...


Yeah.. I guess the loan was based on Macs wonderfull smile right... 

Hmmm..

"...In order to receive matching funds, John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC to accept spending limits and to abide by the conditions of receiving those funds. The FEC requires that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be granted by the FEC. FEC Chairman David Mason made this clear in a letter to McCain advising him that the law requires the FEC to approve his request to withdraw from his contract - a move McCain ignored...
According to past Commission rulings, the McCain campaign would not be allowed to withdraw from matching funds because it already violated a key condition for being let out of the program - pledging matching funds as collateral for a private loan..."


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Yeah.. I guess the loan was based on Macs wonderfull smile right...
> 
> Hmmm..
> 
> ...



Have you read the actual contract? It explicitly states that public funds were not to be used as collateral. But somehow the DNC thinks it does mean it is collateral.....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> *obama will fight the might deep pockets of the gop with $25 donations.*  he doesn't want to even the playing field when 527's are at work.  I don't know all the details, but he isn't letting mccain dictate the rules.
> 
> are you guys gonna bitch abut obama like you did clinton?  he rocked and you nay sayed the entire time.
> 
> gw had the world eating out of his hands after 9 11 abd he squandered a great opportunity for corporate greed.  I know you know what i'm talking about.



Prime example of Obama fighting the deep pockets of the gop with *$25 donations*.

Obama Visits Billionaires Row

In the Haight, stencils of Barack Obama's smiling face are decorating the sidewalk. But in real life, he is turning up in more lucrative venues: The candidate will be around here on *April 6, at a series of events that includes three $2,300-a-head maximum-strength fundraisers*: Sara and Sohaib Abbasi are throwing a luncheon in Atherton; he'll zip up to Nancy and Bob Farese's house in Kentfield in mid-afternoon; and proceed from there to Ann and Gordon Getty's in San Francisco.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> What Obama quotes about 527's are you referring to?
> 
> Is this the suit you are referring to?
> 
> ...



yea, that's what the gop says.  and when a bush federal apptee rules, that'll be his decision too.  but mccain got a loan and used pub. fin. as collateral.  that's illegal when you never had public financing.  he should be forced to take it.  lol

maybe their emails got deleted and I bet they don't recall.....

you believe liars.  you must think they still represent your best interests.  how do you think you benefit?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> yea, that's what the gop says.  and when a bush federal apptee rules, that'll be his decision too.  but mccain got a loan and used pub. fin. as collateral.  that's illegal when you never had public financing.  he should be forced to take it.  lol
> 
> maybe their emails got deleted and I bet they don't recall.....
> 
> you believe liars.  you must think they still represent your best interests.  how do you think you benefit?




No, I don't believe anyone, I read the loan application myself. It says without stuttering that public financing isn't to be used as collateral.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> No, I don't believe anyone, I read the loan application myself. It says without stuttering that public financing isn't to be used as collateral.



Have you read the loan application?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Have you read the loan application?




Here you go, pay close attention to parts D and E of the loan application.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/20080220c1image.pdf


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 7, 2008)

Your an idiot reeves... this is greater excerpt from the same article that posted that you chose to ignore...



> "Earlier this year, he opted out of the public financing system in the primary campaign when he seemed assured of capturing the presidential nomination. But his effort was questioned by FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, who said the presumptive Republican nominee had to assure the regulatory agency that he had not used the promise of public money to secure a $4 million line of credit in November.
> 
> Then the Democratic National Committee (DNC) got into the act Feb. 25, filing a lawsuit to compel the FEC to conduct an investigation. It was rejected in U.S. District Court, which ruled the agency still had 120 days to fully consider the issue. That deadline expired Tuesday, though the FEC could not have acted until its vacancies had been filled.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 7, 2008)

I guess since the RNC dismissed it, it must be so right.. what an idiot...


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 7, 2008)

Johnny has joined the republican sect and like all converts he has changed. LOL

McCain Sets a New Record: 10 Flip-Flops in Two Weeks

Crooks and Liars  McCain Sets a New Record: 10 Flip-Flops in Two Weeks


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215176375&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War: Joe Bageant: Books[/ame]


----------



## nomdeplume (Jul 7, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Johnny has joined the republican sect and like all converts he has changed. LOL
> 
> McCain Sets a New Record: 10 Flip-Flops in Two Weeks
> ]



What a crock of horseshit. That doesn't have ten flipflops, it has 10 examples of how stupid and poor readers dumbocrats are, at best, and their pathological lieing nature at worst.


----------



## editec (Jul 7, 2008)

> *McCain is the Greatest Flip Flopper of all time *


 
Not sure about that, but this thread title might be a candidate for *The Most Hyperbolic Thread Title Written by a McCain opposer* in quite some time.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Your an idiot reeves... this is greater excerpt from the same article that posted that you chose to ignore...



All you have to do is read the loan application. It explicity states that public funding isn't to be used as collateral, how much more freaking clear could it have been? If you can't read the contract, who is the real idiot?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> No, I don't believe anyone, I read the loan application myself. It says without stuttering that public financing isn't to be used as collateral.



Hey jackass, I'm at work so I can PROVE anything you think I made up.  By the way, do you really want McCain's camp to be the next ADMINISTRATION?

WASHINGTON - Senator John McCains campaigns have long been defined by internal squabbling and power plays, zigzagging lines of command and a penchant by the candidate for consulting with former advisers without alerting current ones, always a recipe for disquiet. 

After a period of relative calm on that score, it is becoming clear that his campaign is once again a swirl of competing spheres of influence, clusters of friends, consultants and media advisers who represent a matrix of clashing ambitions and festering feuds. The cast includes the surviving members of Mr. McCains 2000 campaign, led by Rick Davis and Mark Salter; a new camp out of the world of Karl Rove, led by the recently ascendant Steve Schmidt; and on the periphery, the ever-present Mike Murphy, Mr. McCains strategist in the 2000 presidential race who has been dispensing advice to the candidate to the annoyance of the other camps, and is the subject of intensifying rumors in Republican circles that he is about to re-enter the campaign.

Mr. McCain is uncomfortable firing people or banishing them entirely. His orbit remains filled with people who have been demoted without being told they are being demoted, like Mr. Davis, who continues to hold the title of campaign manager even as Mr. Schmidt manages the campaign. Yet, Mr. McCain inspires uncommon loyalty in those who serve with him  hence the willingness of Mr. Murphy to consider coming back into the McCain campaign, despite his own rather brutal history of enmity with Mr. Davis.

Politics heat up at McCain campaign - The New York Times - MSNBC.com


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2008)

If mccain can't manage his own campaign, how will he manage the country?  Notice Obama runs a smooth campaign?  That's right.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> All you have to do is read the loan application. It explicity states that public funding isn't to be used as collateral, how much more freaking clear could it have been? If you can't read the contract, who is the real idiot?



If what you are saying is true then Fidelity Banking $ Trust is in deep shit for giving Mac a sweetheart loan with No Collateral and a chance that the loan would have been defaulted on.... LOL.. someones head is gonna roll over this deal one way or another... I wonder which makes more sense... a secure loan for millions or an unsecured loan for millions... give it up.. common sense says you can stuff you loan application theory back in your ass cause if means little when the ramifications of this transaction are scrutinized....


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2008)

jreeves said:


> All you have to do is read the loan application. It explicity states that public funding isn't to be used as collateral, how much more freaking clear could it have been? If you can't read the contract, who is the real idiot?



Why I don't blame you for being a nucklehead:

Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

So they worked for decades to sucker guys like you into falling for their bullshit and boy did you swallow it!!!!!  You still are!!!!


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Hey jackass, I'm at work so I can PROVE anything you think I made up.  By the way, do you really want McCain's camp to be the next ADMINISTRATION?
> 
> WASHINGTON - Senator John McCains campaigns have long been defined by internal squabbling and power plays, zigzagging lines of command and a penchant by the candidate for consulting with former advisers without alerting current ones, always a recipe for disquiet.
> 
> ...



OMG...the NYT has issues with MCcain's campaign what a shock...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> If what you are saying is true then Fidelity Banking $ Trust is in deep shit for giving Mac a sweetheart loan with No Collateral and a chance that the loan would have been defaulted on.... LOL.. someones head is gonna roll over this deal one way or another... I wonder which makes more sense... a secure loan for millions or an unsecured loan for millions... give it up.. common sense says you can stuff you loan application theory back in your ass cause if means little when the ramifications of this transaction are scrutinized....



Evidently you didn't read the loan application either....The loan was secured with future income excluding public financing. Common sense and a fifth grade reading level tells you that there was nothing inappropriate about this loan.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> If mccain can't manage his own campaign, how will he manage the country?  Notice Obama runs a smooth campaign?  That's right.



huh.....

AYERS,REZKO,WRIGHT.....etc.....


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 9, 2008)

> ...The loan was secured with future income...



Oh I get it... a multi million dollar loan was given to a third tier candidate based on his vast following and fund raising abilities... Try again...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> huh.....
> 
> AYERS,REZKO,WRIGHT.....etc.....



Wright?  His preacher?  That's the best you have on him?  Ayers?  Isn't that the guy that he met when Obama was 6 or 8 years old?

If you won't vote for Obama because of them, you should stay home this November.

FACT CHECK:

JOHN MCCAINS LOBBYIST FRIENDS

Anti-Western Political Parties 

Campaign Manager Rick Daviss Firm Represented Anti-Western Political Party in Ukraine. A consultant to Sen. John McCain hired a public-relations firm last year to burnish the U.S. image of a Ukrainian political party backed by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to documents filed with the Justice Department. The lobbying firm of Davis Manafort Inc. arranged for the public-relations firms work through an affiliate last spring, at the same time Davis Manafort was being paid by the Republican presidential candidates campaign. The firm is co-owned by lobbyist Rick Davis, manager of Sen. McCains presidential campaign, and longtime Republican strategist Paul Manafort. [Wall Street Journal, 5/14/08] 
Mob-Connected Russian Oligarchs

Davis Introduced McCain to Putin-Ally, Mafia-Linked Russian Oligarch. While seeking to do business with him, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis - while simultaneously at the Reform Institute and lobbying for Davis Manafort - introduced McCain to Oleg Deripaska, a Putin ally whose U.S. visa was revoked due to suspicions over his ties to Russian organized crime. McCain, Deripaska and Davis rendezvoused at least twice - first in January 2006 in Davos, then during a codel in Montenegro in August 2006. [Washington Post, 1/25/08] 
The Saudi Royal Family

Former Campaign Finance Chair Tom Loeffler Lobbied McCain for Saudi Clients. But the fallout may not be over. One top campaign official affected by the new policy is national finance co-chair Tom Loeffler, a former Texas congressman whose lobbying firm has collected nearly $15 million from Saudi Arabia since 2002 and millions more from other foreign and corporate interests, including a French aerospace firm seeking Pentagon contracts. Loeffler last month told a reporter at no time have I discussed my clients with John McCain. But lobbying disclosure records reviewed by NEWSWEEK show that on May 17, 2006, Loeffler listed meeting McCain along with the Saudi ambassador to discuss US-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relations. [Newsweek, 5/26/08: ]Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com 
Companies doing business in Iran

McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis Represented Ukrainian Companies Doing Business in Iran. Before Rick Davis began serving as John McCains campaign manager, his lobbying firm had a pretty cosmopolitan set of clients. For example, Ukranian billionaire Rinat Akhmetov, who has several business links to Iran Davis Manafort was helping Akhmetovs conglomerate, System Capital Management Holdings, to develop a corporate communications strategy between the beginging of 2005 through the end of summer 2005, the company said. The companys subsidiary, Metinvest, a steel company, has one of its 11 offices in Tehran. And another subsidiary, Khartsyzsk Pipe Plant, sells large pipes to Iran. Those business ties go back to at least 2005, when Davis Manafort was working for the company, according to a handful of stories in business publications like the Russia & CIS Metals and Mining Weekly and the Mining and the Metals report, which we found on Nexis. [TPM, 5/30/08: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/before_rick_davis_began_servin.php] 
The Brutal Myanmar Junta

Doug Goodyear Left Campaign After Revelations His Firm Represented Myanmar Regime. The man picked by the John McCain campaign to run the 2008 Republican National Convention resigned Saturday after a report that his lobbying firm used to represent the military regime in Myanmar. Doug Goodyear resigned as coordinator of the Twin Cities convention and issued a two-sentence statement. [Associated Press, 5/11/08] 
Goodyear and Doug Davenport, Regional Campaign Manager, Tied to Oppressive Myanmar Junta. ABC News Jan Simmonds reports: Two of Sen. John McCain campaign aides resigned this weekend after media reports brought to light their ties to a lobbying group that once represented the military junta of Burma, which the regime calls Myanmar. The aides, Douglas Goodyear, who was tapped as the GOP Convention Coordinator, and Doug Davenport, a regional manager focusing on the mid-Atlantic states, both worked for DCI. The firm was hired in 2002 to represent Burmas military junta to try to begin a dialogue of political reconciliation with the United States. [ABCNews.com, 5/11/08] 
and some of historys Most Brutal Tyrants.

Charlie Black Pioneered the Revolving Door Between Campaign Consulting and Lobbying. Then in his 30s, Black already had established himself as a pioneer of the revolving door between campaign consulting and lobbying, having been a senior adviser on President Ronald Reagans reelection campaign before returning to K Street. And his clients, as often as not, were foreign leaders eager to burnish their reputationsThe lobbying shop represented Bethlehem Steel, the Tobacco Institute and the government of the Philippines. The political consulting firm helped elect a slew of lawmakers  including Sens. Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms, Charles McC. Mathias Jr., Arlen Specter, Paula Hawkins and David F. Durenberger  who worked on legislation that directly impacted the firms clients. [Washington Post, 5/22/08] 
Longtime Uber-Lobbyist Helped Burnish Reputations of Some of the Worlds Worst Tyrants. Longtime uber-lobbyist Charles R. Black Jr. is John McCains man in Washington, a political maestro who is hoping to guide his friend, the senator from Arizona, to the presidency this November. But for half a decade in the 1980s, Black was also Jonas Savimbis man in the capital city. His lobbying firm received millions from the brutal Angolan guerrilla leader and took advantage of Blacks contacts in Congress and the White House. [Washington Post, 5/22/08] 
Blacks Client List a Whose Who of Repressive Rulers. In addition to Savimbi, Black and his partners were at times registered foreign agents for a remarkable collection of U.S.-backed foreign leaders whose human rights records were sometimes harshly criticized, even as their opposition to communism was embraced by American conservatives. They included Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Nigerian Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre, and the countries of Kenya and Equatorial Guinea, among others. [Washington Post, 5/22/08]


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 9, 2008)

Yes yes, McCain Flip Flops, and Obama Revises. LOL, keep drinking the Koolaide people.


----------



## busara (Jul 9, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yes yes, McCain Flip Flops, and Obama Revises. LOL, keep drinking the Koolaide people.



are people so absorbed in their party they cant say that their candidate flipflops along with the other candidate? i dont understand the hatred people carry toward the partys that arent their own


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 9, 2008)

We are all a bunch of Lemmings eating up the Act Both candidates are putting on for us. If we had any brains at all , we would all vote 3rd party simply to tell these Assholes in Both Parties we have had enough of their game.


----------



## busara (Jul 9, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> We are all a bunch of Lemmings eating up the Act Both candidates are putting on for us. If we had any brains at all , we would all vote 3rd party simply to tell these Assholes in Both Parties we have had enough of their game.





unfortunately, i dont know if people will ever get over the 'throwing your vote away' mentality


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 9, 2008)

busara said:


> unfortunately, i dont know if people will ever get over the 'throwing your vote away' mentality



I think Obama is about as fresh and new as you can get.  What 3rd party guy is better?  Bloomberg?  Nader?  Perot?  LOLOL.

Obama is going to be like Kennedy, only better.  Better than Clinton.  Better than Reagan.

Mark my words.  He will show you fiscal responsibility and what it means to be an honest honorable man.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2008)

You are high.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 9, 2008)

did you guys hear mccain argue with a viet nam vet?  the guy asked him why he consistently votes against vets and mccain said he gets the highest ratings from all vet groups.  the guy called him out and mccain said, "maybe you know something those groups don't".  the guy said, "I can tell you the exact bills you voted against....."

anyways, a vet group said obama voted with vets 80 percent of the time and mccain 20.

when asked, "how does mccain think he can get away with lying like this", the vet said, "most ppl won't dig or fact check his record......"

mcain is a joke.  and he was warned of a political backlash if he voted against the gi bil but he did it anyways.  

and bush praised mccain when he signed the bill.  maybe that's why he thought he could have it both ways?


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 9, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I think Obama is about as fresh and new as you can get.  What 3rd party guy is better?  Bloomberg?  Nader?  Perot?  LOLOL.
> 
> Obama is going to be like Kennedy, only better.  Better than Clinton.  Better than Reagan.
> 
> Mark my words.  He will show you fiscal responsibility and what it means to be an honest honorable man.



Good words. 

Barack Obama Featured Biography


----------



## jreeves (Jul 10, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Oh I get it... a multi million dollar loan was given to a third tier candidate based on his vast following and fund raising abilities... Try again...



Yes, it's done all the time.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

editec said:


> Not sure about that, but this thread title might be a candidate for *The Most Hyperbolic Thread Title Written by a McCain opposer* in quite some time.



Exactly, fight fire with fire.



*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Exactly, fight fire with fire.
> 
> 
> 
> *A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


 
My point is simple. McCAin has flip flopped on some issues to be sure.

Politicians are apt to do that when they're running for office and it's politically expedient.

I won't be voting for McCain, but calling him the GREATEST FLIPFLOPPER OF ALL TIME is simply ridiculous.

It was a ridiculous charge when it was made about Kerry, too.

Just more ignorant partisan blather, in my opinion.

NEITHER of these guys has cloven hooves, people.


----------



## busara (Jul 10, 2008)

editec said:


> My point is simple. McCAin has flip flopped on some issues to be sure.
> 
> Politicians are apt to do that when they're running for office and it's politically expedient.
> 
> ...



my girlfriends father wants me to fill him in on where the candidates stand on the issues, etc, because he is too busy with work to look into it himself. i dont know what to tell cause they keep changing


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

busara said:


> my girlfriends father wants me to fill him in on where the candidates stand on the issues, etc, because he is too busy with work to look into it himself. i dont know what to tell cause they keep changing



Send him here:

OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues

*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Why I don't blame you for being a nucklehead:
> 
> Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them
> 
> ...


 
Man and how well it has worked, too.

The Neo-cons who have been pulling the strings that manipulated our language that make framing the debates favorable to disinforming people are_ freaking brilliant._

It is almost impossible to actually have a coherent debate now that most people really knows what words mean anymore.


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2008)

busara said:


> my girlfriends father wants me to fill him in on where the candidates stand on the issues, etc, because he is too busy with work to look into it himself. i dont know what to tell cause they keep changing


 

Oh, that's easy.

Tell him that McCain is for whatever favors his wealthy supporters, and Obama is for whatever favors his wealthy supporters.

If he's still old enough, and still confused just tell him McCain is a Jet and Obama is a Shark.

He's get it.


----------



## busara (Jul 10, 2008)

editec said:


> Oh, that's easy.
> 
> Tell him that McCain is for whatever favors his wealthy supporters, and Obama is for whatever favors his wealthy supporters.
> 
> ...



ok, you got me. what does being a Jet or Shark mean?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I think Obama is about as fresh and new as you can get.  What 3rd party guy is better?  Bloomberg?  Nader?  Perot?  LOLOL.
> 
> Obama is going to be like Kennedy, only better.  Better than Clinton.  Better than Reagan.
> 
> Mark my words.  He will show you fiscal responsibility and what it means to be an honest honorable man.




You are totally lost on this. Obama will Increase Gov and Gov Spending more than we have ever known. He has already put forward 1 trillion in new spending, and his plans on how to pay for it do not add up.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> You are totally lost on this. Obama will Increase Gov and Gov Spending more than we have ever known. He has already put forward 1 trillion in new spending, and his plans on how to pay for it do not add up.



Here is how Obama is better than McCain.  

1.  Obama will take away the unfair tax break to the rich.  

That's one way of coming up with some money

2.  Obama will end the war.  That'll save us a shit load of money.

McCain says he'll keep the tax breaks in place and continue the war for 100 years.

No brainer, Obama wins this one.

Again, Obama isn't perfect and neither is the Democratic party, but they are for sure the lesser of two evils.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> You are totally lost on this. Obama will Increase Gov and Gov Spending more than we have ever known. He has already put forward 1 trillion in new spending, and his plans on how to pay for it do not add up.



Why?  Just because that's what Bush did, you think Obama will too?

Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years

Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesnt include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation.

The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.

The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bushs new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinet-level agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office.

Republicans could reform the budget rules that stack the deck in favor of more spending. Unfortunately, senior House Republicans are fighting the changes. The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government.


----------



## Jeepers (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Why?  Just because that's what Bush did, you think Obama will too?
> 
> Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years
> 
> ...




OMG.. your using the facts against charlie... thats not fair... Obama also seeks to remove corp tax loopholes and subsides as well as shutting down ofshore tax havens..


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> OMG.. your using the facts against charlie... thats not fair... Obama also seeks to remove corp tax loopholes and subsides as well as shutting down ofshore tax havens..



hahaha!!!  Thanks Jeepers.  

They say that I think I can predict the future, but then they say Obama will increase the government and spend a lot.  How do they know?  

And if Clinton didn't double the debt, and Carter didn't, why do they think Obama will?  

These republicans have mastered the language and the game.  They call Democrats tax and spenders.  Then the GOP spends away, and delays sending us the bill, which is WORSE!!!  Because when they slap it on the debt, it starts to collect interest.  

Ever have a credit card with 10% interest and only make the minimum payment while at the same time maxing that card to the limit?  That's what the GOP did for 6 years.  

The Federal Reserve is the root of all evil.  They are also the credit card companies.  What most Americans don't realize is that this recession is great for the credit card companies and the Federal Reserve, because people, and the country, are going further into debt.  That makes them more powerful and richer.  Now they own us even more.  

Then people say, "but even the banks and credit card companies got hurt because people are going bankrupt and not paying their debts.  Bullshit I say.  Yes the banks went to far with the subprime mortgage thing, but then the Federal Reserve bailed them out.  Wasn't that nice of them?  Hell no.  That was OUR MONEY.  That was OUR DEBT.  They never lose.  WE LOSE.  

Not to mention they made it easier for corporations to go bankrupt but harder for middle class people to do it.  It will cost you a lot of money and it will ruin your credit forever.  That means you will pay more on your car insurance if you default on your loan.  They will get their money back from you.

And I sometimes say, "the oil companies are benefitting at the auto industries expense", and then I realize that Ford is making a fortune in China.

They are purposely bankrupting themselves here in America so they can break the unions and move their operations overseas.

The Federal Reserve was started in 1913.  That was the year our country changed forever.  It is unconstitutional to tax income.  But they got away with it anways.  I'll stop rambling now, but people are sheeple.  LOL.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> I can't think of anything McCain has directly flipflopped on offhand. You have any examples?
> 
> For instance, he said he was against the GWB tax cuts when Bush was first trying to pass them.
> 
> ...





Posing the first question in a Denver town hall meeting yesterday, a Vietnam veteran challenged Sen. John McCain on his Senate voting record regarding veterans issues, remarking he had voted against increasing vets health funding four years in a row. Ignoring the veterans point, McCain testily  and repeatedly  insisted that he had received every award from every major veterans organization in America:

MCCAIN: Ive received every award from every major veterans organization in America.  The reason why I have a perfect voting record from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and all the other veterans service organizations is because of my support of them. 

VETERAN: You do not have a perfect voting record by the DAV and the VFW. Thats where these votes were recorded. These votes were proposals by your colleagues in the Senate to increase health care of the VA in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And you voted against those proposals. []

MCCAIN: Ive been endorsed in every election by every veterans organization that do that, Ive been supported by them, and Ive received their highest awards from all of those organizations. So I guess they dont know something you know.



Watch the video, via AHiddenSaint: 

 McCain has made the exact same claim before  and it is just a false today as it was then. As ThinkProgress documented, McCains so-called perfect record has been roundly criticized by prominent veterans groups: He received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America noted McCain had voted against us in 15 key votes.  FYI, Obama votes with the vets 80% of the time and he got a B+ rating.  

As for the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars  with whom McCain claims to have a perfect voting record  both groups vigorously supported Sen. Jim Webbs (D-VA) GI Bill that McCain tirelessly opposed.  It is also important to note that when Bush signed this bill, he mentioned McCain by name when praising and thanking Congress for passing the bill.  So McCain thinks he can have it both ways.  

Later in the town hall, McCain admitted he does not have a perfect voting record, but then declared that questions about veterans issues were off limits: I will be glad to debate a lot of things, but not that one, McCain said.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> hahaha!!!  Thanks Jeepers.
> 
> *They say that I think I can predict the future, but then they say Obama will increase the government and spend a lot.  How do they know?  *
> And if Clinton didn't double the debt, and Carter didn't, why do they think Obama will?
> ...



Obama has proposed 1 trillion dollars in new governmental spending. What makes me think that Obama wants to spend us into bankruptcy given Carter and Clinton? Because Obama isn't Clinton or Carter correct? Duh....

I will school you if needs be, Democrats and Republicans have spent us into a 9 trillion dollars of debt.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Why?  Just because that's what Bush did, you think Obama will too?
> 
> Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years
> 
> ...



I agree we need to cut social spending dramatically.....


Here I thought the democrats were in control of both houses of Congress.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Obama has proposed 1 trillion dollars in new governmental spending. What makes me think that Obama wants to spend us into bankruptcy given Carter and Clinton? Because Obama isn't Clinton or Carter correct? Duh....
> 
> I will school you if needs be, Democrats and Republicans have spent us into a 9 trillion dollars of debt.



ok, i'll give you that both parties spend too much, but pick one.

one spends on the top 10 percent and the other spends on the other 90.  one spends corporations overseas and one backs american labor.  

the dems wil spend in america and on america and the other spends in iraq.  

basically, the dems are the lesser of two evils.

reagan tripled the debt and bush doubled it.

oh, I forgot, you don't think the debt matters.  then start paying just the min. on your credit card and max out it out.  see if that matters stupid.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 10, 2008)

God I feel so much dumber having read sealyboobo's crap ... like I need to have the inside of my skull scraped.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> ok, i'll give you that both parties spend too much, but pick one.
> 
> one spends on the top 10 percent and the other spends on the other 90.  one spends corporations overseas and one backs american labor.
> 
> ...



I give you Bush, he was never a conservative.....

But Reagan, Vetoed bills only to have Democrats in Congress pass more and more spending bills over top of his vetoes....
AllPolitics - Surprise! Congress Overrides A Reagan Veto - September 20, 1982
When the ayes and the nays were totted up, it appeared at first to be a devastating defeat for Ronald Reagan. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to override the President's veto last month of a $ 14.2 billion supplemental spending bill. It marked the first time that Congress had overturned a Reagan veto of an economic measure, * and it did so in impressive numbers: the vote in the House was 301 to 117 -- 22 more than the two-thirds needed for an override; in the Republican-controlled Senate the tally was 60 to 30, exactly the required margin. But if the rebuke was supposed to sting, the White House appeared surprisingly unruffled. "We're going to have a lot more chances, 'cause I'm going to do a lot more vetoing." said *a feisty Reagan *as he campaigned for Republican candidates in Utah last Friday. " *Any time there is an attempt to bust the budget, I will veto." *


----------



## jreeves (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> ok, i'll give you that both parties spend too much, but pick one.
> 
> one spends on the top 10 percent and the other spends on the other 90.  one spends corporations overseas and one backs american labor.
> 
> ...



Here's a little waste for you....both Dems and Reps on that list...

Citizens Against Government Waste:

*The French Kiss Off Award*
to Representative Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) for $211,509 in olive fruit fly research in Paris, France

*The Taxpayers Get Teed Off Award*
to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) for $3 million for The First Tee in the defense appropriations bill.

*The Tax Dollars on Drugs Award*
to Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.) for $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center.

*The Pantheon of Pork Award*to Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.VA) for $386 million in pork.

*The Narcissist Award*
to Representative Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) for $1,950,000 for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service

*The Pig in Sheep's Clothing Award*to Montana Senators Max Baucaus (D) and Jon Tester (D) for $148,950 for the Montana Sheep Institute.

*The Unidentified Fiscal Object  *
Award to Representative Ann Esshoo (D-Calif.) for $1.6 million for the Allen Telescope Array.

See how one can be partisan....


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 11, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> God I feel so much dumber having read sealyboobo's crap ... like I need to have the inside of my skull scraped.



Not an answer. 

Reagan and Bush both, because of their tax policies, have brought America closer to being a third world nation. The infrastructure is collapsing as the rich move money and jobs off shore.

And social spending, so called socialistic entitlements, only account for 4% of each tax dollar. Given that, the wingnuts are barking up the wrong tree, but corporations love that they do.


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## jreeves (Jul 11, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Not an answer.
> 
> Reagan and Bush both, because of their tax policies, have brought America closer to being a third world nation. The infrastructure is collapsing as the rich move money and jobs off shore.
> 
> ...




BS 685 billion is not 4% of each tax dollar.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Here's a little waste for you....both Dems and Reps on that list...
> 
> Citizens Against Government Waste:
> 
> ...



Isn't it funny that even though the Dems control both houses, the GOP still spent the most pork in 2007?  That's the only way the Dems could get anything done with a one person majority.  You gotta pay the GOP to get them to help fix America.  If you don't give them their pork, they'll take their toys and go home.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 12, 2008)

jreeves said:


> BS 685 billion is not 4% of each tax dollar.



The stat is from Bageant's book linked above, but no footnote. It is hard to find exact statistics in this area although government spending in total has become a large part of the GDP.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> BS 685 billion is not 4% of each tax dollar.



Gop voters are so dumb.  the gop doesn't care about gays, flip floping, drug use, fiscal responsibility, guns, abrtion, illegal immigration, race, global warming.  they prove that everytime they get caught being hypocritical.  they flip flop mccain, are gay larry craig, use drugs rush limbaugh and bush, spend more than dems and grew the government.  

how many times do they have to disappoint you before you leave them?  you are the abused wife in the relationship.

they only care about the richest ppl in america.  they use wedge issues because they need your dumb ass vote.

you are truly ignorant.  the democratic party disappoints us too sometimes, but the gop is all about the rich, and you aren't  rich.  and they disappoint you on every other issue.  

and you are too brainwashed to even get disappointed.

the dems disappointed me with the recent fisa vote.  when was the last time the gop disappointed you?  you defend everything they do.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> The stat is from Bageant's book linked above, but no footnote. It is hard to find exact statistics in this area although government spending in total has become a large part of the GDP.



This might help, for determining what level social spending plays......

Doesn't look like 4% though...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Isn't it funny that even though the Dems control both houses, the GOP still spent the most pork in 2007?  That's the only way the Dems could get anything done with a one person majority.  You gotta pay the GOP to get them to help fix America.  If you don't give them their pork, they'll take their toys and go home.



Actually the DEMS had more earmarks than the GOP, so they are the biggest pigs this year.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Gop voters are so dumb.  the gop doesn't care about gays, flip floping, drug use, fiscal responsibility, guns, abrtion, illegal immigration, race, global warming.  they prove that everytime they get caught being hypocritical.  they flip flop mccain, are gay larry craig, use drugs rush limbaugh and bush, spend more than dems and grew the government.
> 
> how many times do they have to disappoint you before you leave them?  you are the abused wife in the relationship.
> 
> ...



Liberals are all idiots....My proof.....


Sealybobo(liberal)-----

"Gop voters are so dumb.  the gop doesn't care about gays, flip floping, drug use, fiscal responsibility, guns, abrtion, illegal immigration, race, global warming.  they prove that everytime they get caught being hypocritical.  they flip flop mccain, are gay larry craig, use drugs rush limbaugh and bush, spend more than dems and grew the government.  

how many times do they have to disappoint you before you leave them?  you are the abused wife in the relationship.

they only care about the richest ppl in america.  they use wedge issues because they need your dumb ass vote.

you are truly ignorant.  the democratic party disappoints us too sometimes, but the gop is all about the rich, and you aren't  rich.  and they disappoint you on every other issue.  

and you are too brainwashed to even get disappointed.

the dems disappointed me with the recent fisa vote.  when was the last time the gop disappointed you?  you defend everything they do."


----------



## editec (Jul 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> This might help, for determining what level social spending plays......
> 
> Doesn't look like 4% though...
> 
> ...


 
WELFARE is 4% of the national budget.  

Welfare actually comes out of the FICA revenue.

Social Security and Medicade are both paid for by social security taxes and medicade taxes.

They are really in a different budget than military, welfare, and so forth, 

That is why they are taken out of our paychecks as SEPARATE ITEMS from FICA.

Now unless you think (as you obviously do) that social security is welfare, then you must also sign onto the same principle that something like military pension is ALSO welfare.

I happen to think that both are merely social contracts being fulfilled.
People piad for social security insurance, so that is not welfare/

People also paid for their military pensions with their service, so that is not welfare either.

Why some of you have trouble understanding these obvious facts, I cannot quite understand.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 13, 2008)

editec said:


> WELFARE is 4% of the national budget.
> 
> Welfare actually comes out of the FICA revenue.
> 
> ...




Medicaid and Medicare both use general taxes to fund their programs.

Medicaid funding accounts for 12.8 percent of general fund appropriations for FY 2001. Major developments include the following. 


General fund appropriations for Medicaid for FY 2001 increased by 7.4 percent over spending levels in FY 2000, compared with an overall growth rate of 6.6 percent for general fund appropriations.


Growth in total Medicaid appropriations-general funds and earmarked funds-is 6.4 percent for FY 2001. 


Earmarked revenues for Medicaid decreased as a percentage of state support from 16.5 percent in FY 2000 to 15.7 percent in FY 2001. Forty-one states earmarked funds for Medicaid
MEDICAID FUNDING


Funding for Medicare comes partially from payroll taxes, known as FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) taxes. FICA comprises Social Security tax and Medicare tax. The rate of the Medicare tax is 2.9 percent. Employers withhold 1.45 percent from their employees and match it with another 1.45 percent [Ref]. High-income Social Security beneficiaries also pay income tax on their Social Security income, some of which goes toward Medicare. This money goes into a trust fund used to pay doctors, hospitals and private insurance companies when Medicare patients use their services. This trust fund has been more difficult to manage than the Social Security trust fund, because health care expenditures are harder to track and can change quickly. Medicare Part B is partially (about 25 percent) paid for by premiums and co-pays. In all, Medicare costs about $277 billion per year, roughly 13 percent of the total federal budget [Ref]. 

HowStuffWorks "How Medicare Works"


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Liberals are all idiots....My proof.....
> 
> Sealybobo(liberal)-----
> 
> "Gop voters are so dumb...



That is proof? You may have actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of the categorization of GOP voters. Why do they vote against their own interests is the question, not your personal biases towards trickle down.


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## editec (Jul 14, 2008)

Jjeeves.

Thanks for the heads up explaining the actual numbers and where fuding is coming from.

Now look at the chart I weas responding to where those numbers represent about 75% of the budget.

You see my point?

That chart is specious.  It pretends that the social security and medicade are run on the same budgets as everything else,

They aren't.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

editec said:


> Jjeeves.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up explaining the actual numbers and where fuding is coming from.
> 
> ...



Actually even excluding entitlement programs, means tested welfare is in excess of 434 billion a year. Means tested welfare would include among other things, Welfare, foodstamps, WIC, head start programs for the poor, housing assistance programs....etc....

While entitlements should be included in that figure, a good portion of Medicare is funded from general revenue, Medicaid is strictly funded from general tax revenue and Social Security is being used for general programs.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> That is proof? You may have actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of the categorization of GOP voters. Why do they vote against their own interests is the question, not your personal biases towards trickle down.
> 
> 
> *A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*



Gop voters actually believe in personal responsibility and small government. It's not that they are against charity, they are against government mandated charity. They believe that the people hold the solutions to society's problems and not the government. They believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

Seems to me sense he has secured the nomination, Obama is making a serious run for this title. I have not seen someone make so many fundamental position changes in such a short time ever in my 20 years of following politics.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Gop voters actually believe in personal responsibility and small government. It's not that they are against charity, they are against government mandated charity. They believe that the people hold the solutions to society's problems and not the government. They believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.



Honest question, did you choke when you wrote that? Which GOP are you talking about, it can't be one I know about? Please tell us. Everyone since Nixon has grown government, you must believe the spin from the wingnuts.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Honest question, did you choke when you wrote that? Which GOP are you talking about, it can't be one I know about? Please tell us. Everyone since Nixon has grown government, you must believe the spin from the wingnuts.



Actually the government has grown pretty much since FDR, entitlements automatically grow.....


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Gop voters actually believe in personal responsibility and small government. It's not that they are against charity, they are against government mandated charity. They believe that the people hold the solutions to society's problems and not the government. They believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.



ThomHartmann.com - The Story of Carl - On Workers Memorial Day

democracy - the idea of government of, by, and for the people - has been twisted and perverted and essentially taken over by entities driven by a single value: profit. And it's happening all over the world. 

Which is not to say that profit is a bad thing. Carl, for example, was happy that the company he worked for made enough profit that its owners would keep it in business and pay him a salary. Profit can drive healthy economies, and has its rightful place in the halls of business. 

But profit has no place in the halls of governments, which were created by and for living humans. When corporations took over writing the rules that "we, the people" originally put in place to regulate and control profit-driven enterprises, then a sickness known as corporatism seized control of governments, and their people were the first ones to suffer for it. Virtually all legislation in nations that still call themselves democracies now passes through the filters of corporate lobbyists and corporate-funded think-tanks: democracy itself is at risk. 

The main engine of corporatism - the chink in governmental law that makes it possible for corporations to so corrupt governmental processes - is an obscure legal doctrine first embraced in 1886 by the Reporter of the U.S. Supreme Court called "corporate personhood." This doctrine suggests that non-living, non-breathing entities called corporations should have the same rights the Founders of democracy defined (in the US in the "Bill of Rights") first for white men, and were extended after the U.S. Civil War to freed slaves, and to women and more fully to people of color in the 1960s via several different anti-discrimination laws. 

It turns out that this doctrine of corporations as "persons" was a mistake from the beginning: while the reporter wrote that the Court had agreed with corporate personhood, the court itself, and its chief justice, had specifically and repeatedly ruled against it. (You'll find a photograph of the actual handwritten letter from Morrison R. Waite, the U.S. Supreme Court's Chief Justice, on my website: he said: "we avoided meeting the constitutional question [of corporate personhood] in the decision.") 

But because of the words of the reporter, and the promotion of those words by corporations in the decades following 1886, corporations have seized so many "human rights" that they can now prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from performing inspections of their factories by claiming 4th Amendment "privacy rights." They claim they can give unlimited money to politicians - a process that before 1886 was called bribery and was criminal behavior for corporations in virtually all states - by claiming that they are entitled to 1st Amendment free speech rights. They claim that if the majority of the citizens of a local community do not want them to do business in that community, then they are the victims of "discrimination" and can sue that community and its elected officials. 

Even though corporations are not alive and cannot vote, they claim the right to influence elections. Even though they do not need fresh water to drink or clean air to breathe, they claim the right to influence the government agencies that were created to regulate them. Even though they have no color or creed or religion, they claim that human people who speak against them are violating their civil rights. Even though they can live for hundreds of years and are not harmed by asbestos, arsenic, tobacco, or other toxins, they claim the human right of privacy to not disclose to governments or to workers and consumers the dangers they know about their own products. 

So we now face a crisis that is at once environmental, political, and spiritual/moral. According to the AFL-CIO in a report released for April 28ths Workers Memorial Day, "On an average day in 2004, 152 workers lost their lives as a result of workplace injuries and diseases and another 11,780 were injured." The rate of death and disability among workers has been climbing since Bush became president for the first time in decades, in large part because funding for OSHA and mine safety have been cut. At the same time, Bill Frist and Senate and House Republicans want to wipe out asbestos victim's right to sue for damages (they promote it as "helping asbestos victims"), to protect companies like Halliburton that have huge asbestos liabilities. 

How can we best return to our governments the essential values of protecting the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of their people, and separate from our governments contamination by the profit motive, which rightly should remain in the realm of business and not politics? How do we awaken our voters from the spiritual malaise of consumerism run amok? And what are the most appropriate and practical and positive steps we can take now to remedy the damage already done to our air, food, water, and other commons by the recent insinuation of corporatism into our legislatures and high political offices? 

The first part of the answer is for us to awaken to the very real moral and spiritual dilemma we face. This a moral and spiritual dilemma because it transcends politics: it literally means life or death for our citizens and our planet. 

Next, we must show up at the ballot box and send clear messages to our elected officials to correct this illness in our body politic. And, then (or perhaps concurrently), we must convince our governments to use their powers of persuasion (through policies like tax breaks and other incentives) to promote renewable and non-toxic forms of energy, agriculture, and medicine, and re-empower our regulatory agencies which have been so badly infiltrated and taken over by the very corporations they were put in place to constrain. 

If we do this, and do it soon, our children may still inherit a world that can is just and decent and healthy.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> They believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.



One wonders why people still believe that after Enron, Worldcom, SLA scandal, the internet meltdown, the real estate meltdown, and many many more. It almost seems the federal government does a better job?  Consider SS cost 3.5% of it input to run and you know the public sector would have a hard time doing better. Myths die hard.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 15, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> One wonders why people still believe that after Enron, Worldcom, SLA scandal, the internet meltdown, the real estate meltdown, and many many more. It almost seems the federal government does a better job?  Consider SS cost 3.5% of it input to run and you know the public sector would have a hard time doing better. Myths die hard.



You mean like convincing you that your precious social handout programs are worthless?  Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 15, 2008)

How many more issues does Obama need to "revise his stance on" before he takes the title of Greatest flip flopper?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 15, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> One wonders why people still believe that after Enron, Worldcom, SLA scandal, the internet meltdown, the real estate meltdown, and many many more. It almost seems the federal government does a better job?  Consider SS cost 3.5% of it input to run and you know the public sector would have a hard time doing better. Myths die hard.



Does SS cost of 3.5% include the 2 trillion dollars missing from the trust fund?


----------



## Chris (Jul 15, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> How many more issues does Obama need to "revise his stance on" before he takes the title of Greatest flip flopper?



This is the latest talking point of the Republicans flying monkeys of the blogsphere.

As Stephen Colbert said, "George Bush is a man who believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday regardless of what happened on Tuesday."


----------



## Gunny (Jul 15, 2008)

Kirk said:


> This is the latest talking point of the Republicans flying monkeys of the blogsphere.
> 
> As Stephen Colbert said, "George Bush is a man who believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday regardless of what happened on Tuesday."



What does Bush have to do with the post you quoted?  Nothing.  Bush isn't running for President.

And your boy has been backpeddaling his ass off on more than one occasion, so STFU.  This is just the latest talking point of leftwingnuts and their 2nd grade game of playing tit-for-tat.

By God, they called our boy a flip-flopper.  Well, we'll show them.  We'll call every Republican from now on a flip-flopper and see what they got on that.

Grow up.  Politicians change stances when the wind changes direction.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

Just a few issues I think Obama has made drastic changes on.

Iraq time table.

Iraq Surge (said 30k troops would not help, Now says he always knew 30k more troops would improve things)

FISA (called it illegal and unconstitutional, and then voted for it)

Public campaign Financing (said he was going to take it, then decided not too)

Iran (it was a puny non threat of a nation, then all of the sudden a grave threat)

Talking to amagannakillyouall In Iran.

Gun control. 

Thats just a few I am sure I could come up with more if I was not half drunk and tired as hell

Of course McCain is a flip flopper too don't get me wrong.
See I can admit both sides are fucked, can you?


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Does SS cost of 3.5% include the 2 trillion dollars missing from the trust fund?



Irrelevant to the point. Social security is the primary support for millions of Americans, the poor and the working poor, in particular it helps older woman. The figures are staggering. 

If the democratic party were smart they would be telling the public this, day in, and day out, as it is a subject the average working stiff understands. Giving the money to the crooks who have brought you SLA, Enron et al, subprime mess is like giving the key to your house to a crook. It is why SS is now a dead issue for the party of the rich and the corporation the GOP. 


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*

John McCain on the Issues

Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
We need personal savings accounts. (Oct 2007) SS


----------



## editec (Jul 18, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> You mean like convincing you that your precious social handout programs are worthless? Pot, meet kettle.


 

Worthless?

SSI saved my family when I got sick.

I paid into it for 35 years and it was there for me when I needed it.

Hardly worthless to me, sport.

Social Security cannot be blamed for the fact that our government spent all the extra money my generation put into it to keep it stable and in the black.

Blame the Republicans and the Democrats for it.

Blame yourselves for allowing the POLS to raid that fund so that they didn't have to increase you FICA taxes to pay for all the crap they spend it on.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Liberals are all idiots....My proof.....
> 
> 
> Sealybobo(liberal)-----
> ...



Originally Posted by sealybobo  
Gop voters are so dumb. the gop doesn't care about gays, flip floping, drug use, fiscal responsibility, guns, abrtion, illegal immigration, race, global warming. they prove that everytime they get caught being hypocritical. they flip flop mccain, are gay larry craig, use drugs rush limbaugh and bush, spend more than dems and grew the government. 

how many times do they have to disappoint you before you leave them? you are the abused wife in the relationship.

they only care about the richest ppl in america. they use wedge issues because they need your dumb ass vote.

you are truly ignorant. the democratic party disappoints us too sometimes, but the gop is all about the rich, and you aren't rich. and they disappoint you on every other issue. 

and you are too brainwashed to even get disappointed.

the dems disappointed me with the recent fisa vote. when was the last time the gop disappointed you? you defend everything they do. 

Sealybobo(liberal)-----

"Gop voters are so dumb. the gop doesn't care about gays, flip floping, drug use, fiscal responsibility, guns, abrtion, illegal immigration, race, global warming. they prove that everytime they get caught being hypocritical. they flip flop mccain, are gay larry craig, use drugs rush limbaugh and bush, spend more than dems and grew the government. 

how many times do they have to disappoint you before you leave them? you are the abused wife in the relationship.

they only care about the richest ppl in america. they use wedge issues because they need your dumb ass vote.

you are truly ignorant. the democratic party disappoints us too sometimes, but the gop is all about the rich, and you aren't rich. and they disappoint you on every other issue. 

and you are too brainwashed to even get disappointed.

the dems disappointed me with the recent fisa vote. when was the last time the gop disappointed you? you defend everything they do."


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 18, 2008)

The HUGE McCain Blunder No One Knows About....Yet 
by slinkerwink 
Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 0335 AM PDT

I was researching McCain's past position on the war in Afghanistan, and came across this very interesting Meet The Press transcript from October 21st, 2001. This transcript reveals a very intriguing blunder by John McCain that should be discussed in the press today.

He said that he thought the war in Afghanistan should be settled first before going to war with Iraq. This simply puts to lie his arguments on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He used to think that it was important to have everything in Afghanistan settled first, Osama bin Laden caught, and the Taliban regime extinguished before going to war with Iraq. Senator Joe Lieberman also makes a cameo in this transcript.


Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman On Meet The Press, October 21st, 2001:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/at... 

RUSSERT: Would you have any problem expanding President Bush's orders to the CIA to go after Osama bin Laden to include Saddam Hussein?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I leave that to the president. But as a matter of principle and morality, of course not.

RUSSERT: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I think Joe's right.

And I would just like to add one additional point. I believe that we will succeed. We will endure in Afghanistan. We will take out bin Laden, and we will take out the Taliban. And then we've got a major challenge of a stable government, but...

RUSSERT: How long will that take?

MCCAIN: I think the longer we give the impression that we're there for, the shorter it'll be. Because, as you quoted from articles earlier, they think they can outlast us. I don't think they can this time.

RUSSERT: Do you believe the American people will continue to stay with that campaign?

MCCAIN: Absolutely, and I think the president is doing a great job in leading America and making us aware of the challenge we face.

But I think the real crunch is going to come after Afghanistan is settled and then we have to address the other countries, including Iraq. That's where the coalition may not be so strong. That's where people like the Saudis and the French and many others may have real reservations.

And so, we're going to have to be steadfast. And again, the president will continue and, I think, very eloquently stated, countries that harbor these terrorist organizations will be held responsible, so it'll be their choice, not ours. It'll be their choice.


----------



## Yurt (Jul 18, 2008)

maybe it has been asked....

so the candidate with the "most" flip flops, that is the worst candidate?  obviously "some" flip flops are ok, midcan et al are still voting for obama....so where is the line or magical number?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> The HUGE McCain Blunder No One Knows About....Yet
> by slinkerwink
> Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 0335 AM PDT
> 
> ...



Not that I don't trust you, but I will not debate you without first confirming the information that you are presenting is legit. The link you provided is no good. I'm not saying that you purposefully misrepresented something, but from your past posts I wouldn't put it past you.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Irrelevant to the point. Social security is the primary support for millions of Americans, the poor and the working poor, in particular it helps older woman. The figures are staggering.
> 
> If the democratic party were smart they would be telling the public this, day in, and day out, as it is a subject the average working stiff understands. Giving the money to the crooks who have brought you SLA, Enron et al, subprime mess is like giving the key to your house to a crook. It is why SS is now a dead issue for the party of the rich and the corporation the GOP.
> 
> ...



Actually this is what you said....

Consider *SS cost 3.5% of it input to run *and you know the public sector would have a hard time doing better. Myths die hard.

Which is a blatant lie considering there is over 2 trillion dollars gone from the SS trust fund.....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

editec said:


> Worthless?
> 
> SSI saved my family when I got sick.
> 
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Originally Posted by sealybobo
> Gop voters are so dumb. the gop doesn't care about gays, flip floping, drug use, fiscal responsibility, guns, abrtion, illegal immigration, race, global warming. they prove that everytime they get caught being hypocritical. they flip flop mccain, are gay larry craig, use drugs rush limbaugh and bush, spend more than dems and grew the government.
> 
> how many times do they have to disappoint you before you leave them? you are the abused wife in the relationship.
> ...



More proof at least this liberal is an idiot....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 19, 2008)

jreeves said:


> More proof at least this liberal is an idiot....



He just pretends he is not a liberal, and only a conservative that is fed up, to try and gain credibility with us.

Problem is nearly all of is wonderful ideas are liberal


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 19, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Actually this is what you said....
> 
> Consider *SS cost 3.5% of it input to run *and you know the public sector would have a hard time doing better. Myths die hard.
> 
> Which is a blatant lie considering there is over 2 trillion dollars gone from the SS trust fund.....



Sorry but there is no lie there, that is what it costs to run SS. The 2 trillion you mention may have been siphoned off by the fools in congress who still think people are a priority far down their list.

I have been reading about how our healthcare spends more than any other nation yet it seems to only work for the rich as our infant and mature mortality rates are among the worst of all industrial nations. And other nations provide UHC. Here is another example of what happens when the free (aka steal em blind) greed market runs things. Why do you think so many hospitals are non profit today? More on this later.


----------



## editec (Jul 19, 2008)

jreeves said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Worthless?
> ...


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 19, 2008)

Social Security BEFORE
McCain 11/28/04: Without privatization, I dont see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.

AFTER
McCain 6/12/08: "Im not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be."

Abortion BEFORE
McCain 8/24/99: "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." [WashPost]

AFTER
McCain 2/18/07: "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned" [MSNBC]

How Insane Is John McCain?: McCain's Flip Flops (the definitive tally)


*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Sorry but there is no lie there, that is what it costs to run SS. The 2 trillion you mention may have been siphoned off by the fools in congress who still think people are a priority far down their list.
> 
> I have been reading about how our healthcare spends more than any other nation yet it seems to only work for the rich as our infant and mature mortality rates are among the worst of all industrial nations. And other nations provide UHC. Here is another example of what happens when the free (aka steal em blind) greed market runs things. Why do you think so many hospitals are non profit today? More on this later.




The 2 trillion dollars in SS taxes is funding for the program....it has been stolen. Therefore the cost of running SS isn't 3.5%, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

So SS is going bankrupt and you want to turn the country's healthcare over to these fools?


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 20, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The 2 trillion dollars in SS taxes is funding for the program....it has been stolen. Therefore the cost of running SS isn't 3.5%, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
> 
> So SS is going bankrupt and you want to turn the country's healthcare over to these fools?



You're missing the point, SS is ok for a long time and can be supported easily with slight increases, if 2T is missing who took it and where is it? Surely not the civil service people who maintain it? The ball is once again in your court, you want to destroy one of the best things America has done for its people because of why?

http://howinsaneisjohnmccain.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccain-never-met-position-he-didnt-like.html


----------



## Gunny (Jul 20, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> You're missing the point, SS is ok for a long time and can be supported easily with slight increases, if 2T is missing who took it and where is it? Surely not the civil service people who maintain it? The ball is once again in your court, you want to destroy one of the best things America has done for its people because of why?
> 
> How Insane Is John McCain?: McCain's Flip Flops (the definitive tally)



Go read some of WOW's posts.  You're him on the other side of the argument.  You never saw any bullshit you won't try and stick to the wall.

"slight increases" my ass.  Between SS and Federal income tax I don't see close to a quarter of MY income that I earn.  And I can take that money your precious social program boosts from my wallet and make it yield a whole lot more than SS is ever going to give me.

WTF good is SS if it in fact does not provide what it is supposed to?  It's nothing more than a supplement, and if they keep upping the age of entitlement Methuselah himself wouldn't live long enough to collect.  Who can actually LIVE on it?  Rats?  

Oh, I know.  People who have provided for their own retirement already.  Get a clue.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> You're missing the point, SS is ok for a long time and can be supported easily with slight increases



You are practically alone in believing all is fine with SS and it can be sustained "with only slight increases"




midcan5 said:


> if 2T is missing who took it and where is it?



our government took it from the slush fund and spent it on other things.



midcan5 said:


> you want to destroy one of the best things America has done for its people because of why?


 SS is destroying it's self, we will not have to lift a finger to do it.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 20, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> You're missing the point, SS is ok for a long time and can be supported easily with slight increases, if 2T is missing who took it and where is it? Surely not the civil service people who maintain it? The ball is once again in your court, you want to destroy one of the best things America has done for its people because of why?
> 
> How Insane Is John McCain?: McCain's Flip Flops (the definitive tally)



The CBO paints a fairly encouraging picture of the near-term budget situation, even with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts extended. But this near-term outlook should not divert the nation's attention from its serious long-term fiscal problems. *Beyond any doubt, as the CBO once again makes clear, the nation has promised far more in its Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security programs than it can afford.*
CBO Confirms: Long-Run Fiscal Outlook Remains Grim


Does anything else need to be said about a whole new entitlement?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 20, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The CBO paints a fairly encouraging picture of the near-term budget situation, even with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts extended. But this near-term outlook should not divert the nation's attention from its serious long-term fiscal problems. *Beyond any doubt, as the CBO once again makes clear, the nation has promised far more in its Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security programs than it can afford.*
> CBO Confirms: Long-Run Fiscal Outlook Remains Grim
> 
> 
> Does anything else need to be said about a whole new entitlement?




nope, but I am sure we will still end up with new ones. Social programs sound pretty and nice, and are an easy sell.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 21, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Not that I don't trust you, but I will not debate you without first confirming the information that you are presenting is legit. The link you provided is no good. I'm not saying that you purposefully misrepresented something, but from your past posts I wouldn't put it past you.



You can't find it yourself?  Are you like McCain?  A guy who's wife has to help him navigate the internet? 

And why doesn't the link work?  Do "the powers that be" disable links when they know they will be very damaging to McCain?  I noticed that wikipedia's definition of the Keating 5 has been altered to say, "mccain was cleared of all wrongdoing".  LOL.  Like he wasn't involved.  

Ok, we'll move on to another of McCain's flip flops.  Not a big one, but I do think it shows you his lack of character.

He and Trent Lott were sworn enemies.  Lott trashed McCain's legislative goals and McCain even believed that in the 2000 primaries that Lott spread rumors about McCain's mental stability (which I believe is true).  Anyways, as soon as Bush turned on Lott, McCain came rushing to his defense.  

NYT: McCain goes from heckler to deal maker - The New York Times - MSNBC.com

So McCain will get into bed with ANYONE that he thinks can help him out.  

Doesn't that mean if the devil offered him a deal, he would take it to win the presidency?  Because McCain has buddied up to all those agents of intollerance, lobbyists, former enemies, etc.

Doesn't that say something about his character?  

Flip flop


----------



## jreeves (Jul 21, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> You can't find it yourself?  Are you like McCain?  A guy who's wife has to help him navigate the internet?
> 
> And why doesn't the link work?  Do "the powers that be" disable links when they know they will be very damaging to McCain?  I noticed that wikipedia's definition of the Keating 5 has been altered to say, "mccain was cleared of all wrongdoing".  LOL.  Like he wasn't involved.
> 
> ...



Do seek help please, there are people out there editing your BS? I don't think so blabering idiots are readily ignored.....


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 22, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> You are practically alone in believing all is fine with SS and it can be sustained "with only slight increases"
> 
> our government took it from the slush fund and spent it on other things.
> 
> SS is destroying it's self, we will not have to lift a finger to do it.



I'm tired of having to prove SS is ok for a long while, Google it and read a bit.

On a side note I read last evening that the S&P 500 went down 44% in the 70's due to energy costs and inflation. Consider that for all the people who believe the market is god. 

Healthcare is a much more difficult topic for economists as we live in a society that believes ripping off the public is a time honored activity. The growth of non profits who pretend they care for everyone is eating into our pocketbooks and the AMA strict licensing of doctors is keeping their pay exorbitantly high compared to other nations. We pay more for HC than other countries but the poor have no care at all.  

The Conservative Nanny State


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 22, 2008)

Has anyone noticed the commercials that now 'both ways' has trumped flip flopper!  Too funny and sorta impossible but ads never fail to amaze.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 22, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I'm tired of having to prove SS is ok for a long while, Google it and read a bit.
> 
> *On a side note I read last evening that the S&P 500 went down 44% in the 70's due to energy costs and inflation. Consider that for all the people who believe the market is god. *
> Healthcare is a much more difficult topic for economists as we live in a society that believes ripping off the public is a time honored activity. The growth of non profits who pretend they care for everyone is eating into our pocketbooks and the AMA strict licensing of doctors is keeping their pay exorbitantly high compared to other nations. We pay more for HC than other countries but the poor have no care at all.
> ...



I wonder if the average American worker, works for more than a decade?
Traditionally the market returns 10 to 12%, seems like alot better investment to me....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 22, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I'm tired of having to prove SS is ok for a long while, Google it and read a bit.



and I am tired of pointing out that it is only ok because they keep raising the age you can retire at and lowering the benefits.

If the keep "fixing it" that way, by the time I can retire you will have to be 90, and will get about 100 bucks a month when you do.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 22, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I wonder if the average American worker, works for more than a decade?
> Traditionally the market returns 10 to 12%, seems like alot better investment to me....



egads, I already answered that one too!

One man's retirement math: Social Security wins | csmonitor.com

But SS is also insurance for those in need, time for you greed moonies to move onto another subject to hate.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 24, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> and I am tired of pointing out that it is only ok because they keep raising the age you can retire at and lowering the benefits.
> 
> If the keep "fixing it" that way, by the time I can retire you will have to be 90, and will get about 100 bucks a month when you do.



What Crisis?
It Ain't Broke, So No Need To Fix It

Social Security: The Phony Crisis -- Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot
>


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2008)

I want to make sure you see this one:

"I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States," McCain told O'Donnell. "But that's a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make."  

However, on June 20, McCain himself gave a speech in Canada -- to the Economic Club of Canada -- in which he applauded NAFTA's successes. An implicit message behind that speech was that Obama had been critical of the trade accord. Also, McCain's trip to Canada was paid for by the campaign.



McCain questions speech, forgets Canada - First Read - msnbc.com


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> egads, I already answered that one too!
> 
> One man's retirement math: Social Security wins | csmonitor.com
> 
> But SS is also insurance for those in need, time for you greed moonies to move onto another subject to hate.



Sure not all stocks will outperform bonds for that matter, if you didn't diversify your portfolio. But I believe it is up to individuals not the government to invest their own money. 


Do you really need me to post the average rate of return for both SS and stocks? I mean I thought it was common knowledge or is your partisan blather getting in the way of objective thinking?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 26, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> What Crisis?
> It Ain't Broke, So No Need To Fix It
> 
> Social Security: The Phony Crisis -- Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot
> >



More partisan blather.....

The CBO, for godsake the Board of Trustees for SS say that SS is in serious trouble.....


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 26, 2008)

I'm too lazy to go find if there's an article or something on this already, but just saw on CNN straight from the horse's mouth: McCain asked by Wolf Blitzen if what he thought of the fact that Al-Malaki approved of the 16-month withdrawal, and McCain said something to the effect of "Well, yeah, I mean, that is a reasonable, er, timetable"

Actually, I'll just go try and find it somewhere.

McCain On Obama's Iraq Plan: "I Think It's A Pretty Good Timetable"



			
				Huffington Post said:
			
		

> Back in January of this year, John McCain pilloried Mitt Romney for encouraging President Bush in April 2007 to develop a private "series of timetables and milestones" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
> 
> 
> "Timetables was the buzzword for those that wanted to get out," McCain scolded Romney at a Jan. 30 debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif.
> ...



It has a video too. I dunno guys, I'd say it's a pretty big change of heart. (Doesn't anyone else hate the word "flip-flop"? It has to be the most ridiculous phrase _ever_).


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 26, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> I'm too lazy to go find if there's an article or something on this already, but just saw on CNN straight from the horse's mouth: McCain asked by Wolf Blitzen if what he thought of the fact that Al-Malaki approved of the 16-month withdrawal, and McCain said something to the effect of "Well, yeah, I mean, that is a reasonable, er, timetable"
> 
> Actually, I'll just go try and find it somewhere.
> 
> ...




Could it have anything to do with the changing conditions on the ground??

Me thinks YES. The Surge reduced violence to such a level that getting out is not an option. Was it the surge alone? no, but the surge was what created the conditions for every other part of the factors that have made this possible.

At last, we can get out of Iraq, with out it being  a defeat, and get on to the real war on Terrorism, and if McCain wins at least, get on with cutting spening and balancing the Budget.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 26, 2008)

But I mean, really I don't like either of these guys, but... isn't it just a little strange that the conditions on the ground became conducive for a 16-month timetable after Al-Maliki spoke? I mean, I thought he had basically opposed any timetable until... well, until asked what he thought of Al-Maliki's comments. Doesn't it arouse the least bit of suspicion from you?


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sure not all stocks will outperform bonds for that matter, if you didn't diversify your portfolio. But I believe it is up to individuals not the government to invest their own money.



You continue to miss the point, SS is social insurance, it helps many people, particularly women, live a decent life after tragedy or death of a spouse. To ruin it would be a big mistake for Americans, even bigger than the tragedy that is Iraq.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 26, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> At last, we can get out of Iraq, with out it being  a defeat, and get on to the real war on Terrorism, and if McCain wins at least, get on with cutting spening and balancing the Budget.



Winning? an illegal invasion is something we brag about winning? I guess I need to ask who it was we defeated? Terrorism, we beat up a noun! Since there were maybe 30 or more excuses for this illegality you can pick one in the new world where nothing makes sense.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> You continue to miss the point, SS is social insurance, it helps many people, particularly women, live a decent life after tragedy or death of a spouse. To ruin it would be a big mistake for Americans, even bigger than the tragedy that is Iraq.



The tragedy is that Social Security coupled with the other social entitlements will bankrupt this country.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 2, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Winning? an illegal invasion is something we brag about winning? I guess I need to ask who it was we defeated? Terrorism, we beat up a noun! Since there were maybe 30 or more excuses for this illegality you can pick one in the new world where nothing makes sense.



The war was not illegal. You can keep making that claim all you want it simply is not true.

Under US policy and Law the war was completely legal. And under UN Charter it also was acceptable. Or would you care to cite the relevant UN Resolution declaring the war outside the bounds of the UN Charter?


----------



## editec (Aug 2, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I wonder if the average American worker, works for more than a decade?
> *Traditionally the market returns 10 to 12%, seems like alot better investment to me.*...


 
It _does?_

If you are traditionally getting `10-20% on your portfolio, and you are the man in charge of that portfolio, and you are NOT an investment advisor, you sure as hell ought to be.

Are you folks not aware that the market can go down and stay down _for decades?_

If not I strongly advise you to study the overall history of the stock market between the years 1900 to about 2008.  

when the market is hot, it is definitely the place to be.

When it's not?  

Timing folks, it's all about timing.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The war was not illegal. You can keep making that claim all you want it simply is not true.
> 
> Under US policy and Law the war was completely legal. And under UN Charter it also was acceptable. Or would you care to cite the relevant UN Resolution declaring the war outside the bounds of the UN Charter?



UN? HUH! Iraq was not a threat to America, it was our ally against Iran for a long time, Iraq had nothing to do with 911, Iraq did not harbor terrorists - do you really think Hussein would have allowed that - the illegal invasion of Iraq forever ruined the reputation of this country, a reputation that stated positively we do attack sovereign nations based on speculation. 

Once Upon a Time...: Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm: Three Handy Rules

"I repeat: the entire war and occupation are immoral. If you criticize the Bush administration on the grounds that it "bungled" the war, this leaves one, and only one, inevitable implication: if they had prosecuted the war and occupation "competently," then you would have no complaints whatsoever. That is: you think the invasion and occupation of Iraq were justified and moral. If that's what you actually think, you belong in the Bush camp. You're arguing over managerial style, and about issues that are entirely trivial."


----------



## Chris (Aug 2, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> UN? HUH! Iraq was not a threat to America, it was our ally against Iran for a long time, Iraq had nothing to do with 911, Iraq did not harbor terrorists - do you really think Hussein would have allowed that - the illegal invasion of Iraq forever ruined the reputation of this country, a reputation that stated positively we do attack sovereign nations based on speculation.
> 
> Once Upon a Time...: Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm: Three Handy Rules
> 
> "I repeat: the entire war and occupation are immoral. If you criticize the Bush administration on the grounds that it "bungled" the war, this leaves one, and only one, inevitable implication: if they had prosecuted the war and occupation "competently," then you would have no complaints whatsoever. That is: you think the invasion and occupation of Iraq were justified and moral. If that's what you actually think, you belong in the Bush camp. You're arguing over managerial style, and about issues that are entirely trivial."



War is never immoral to RetiredGySt. 

Republicans love war and killing.


----------



## runlikeolympian (Aug 2, 2008)

might be just not at the right timing


----------



## jreeves (Aug 2, 2008)

editec said:


> it _does?_
> 
> If You Are Traditionally Getting `10-20% On Your Portfolio, And You Are The Man In Charge Of That Portfolio, And You Are Not An Investment Advisor, You Sure As Hell Ought To Be.
> 
> ...






According to a University of Michigan study, *an investor who stayed in the US stock market during the entire 30-year period from 1963 to 1993-7,802 trading days-would have had an average annual return of 11.83 %*. *However, if the investor missed the 90 best days while trying to time the market, the average return would have fallen to 3.28% per annum. *


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 3, 2008)

jreeves said:


> According to a University of Michigan study...



Does anyone have that crystal ball that would let us all know when the market goes down so we can sell?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 3, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Does anyone have that crystal ball that would let us all know when the market goes down so we can sell?



Of course not but soem are more informed than others--possibly privy to inside info. It's called gambling on sectors of the economy.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 3, 2008)

John is the Master! A regular Faust to the radical cheap labor right wing republicans. 

"During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the special interests in Washington that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same moratoria should be lifted and proposed incentives for the states in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums.""

Think Progress  McCain flip-flops on offshore drilling moratorium.

Report: McCain Received $881,450 From Big Oil Since He Announced Support For Offshore Drilling

Think Progress  Report: McCain Received $881,450 From Big Oil Since He Announced Support For Offshore Drilling


----------



## jreeves (Aug 3, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Does anyone have that crystal ball that would let us all know when the market goes down so we can sell?



Long term over a thirty year period your rate of return on investment is about 10% which severly trumps anything the government has offered...


----------



## jreeves (Aug 3, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> John is the Master! A regular Faust to the radical cheap labor right wing republicans.
> 
> *"During his last run for the presidency*, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the special interests in Washington that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same moratoria should be lifted and proposed incentives for the states in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums.""
> 
> ...



You don't understand how $4 a gallon may lead someone to rethink limiting the US's domestic supply huh?


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 3, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You don't understand how $4 a gallon may lead someone to rethink limiting the US's domestic supply huh?



McCain opposed Drilling when Gas was 1.50  gallon. Then changed when it was 4.15 a gallon. Hardly the same thing as Obama. Who was against it still when it was 4.15 a gallon.

Obama made this change for one reason. He realized opposing what 75% of Americans want, might cost him the election. Obama is a pure political Animal. He has no real core values, He is lead around by the nose by public opinion. If 75% of Americans were for invading Canada, he would be for it too.

We need A leader!!!!


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> McCain opposed Drilling when Gas was 1.50  gallon. Then changed when it was 4.15 a gallon. Hardly the same thing as Obama. Who was against it still when it was 4.15 a gallon.
> 
> Obama made this change for one reason. He realized opposing what 75% of Americans want, might cost him the election. Obama is a pure political Animal. He has no real core values, He is lead around by the nose by public opinion. If 75% of Americans were for invading Canada, he would be for it too.
> 
> We need A leader!!!!



We need alternative energy. We will not get it with the Republicans in power. They are owned by Big Oil.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 4, 2008)

Simply not true, McCain is for alternatives. Check out his web site. Also Bushes energy plan, that failed to pass would have set aside 10 Billion for alternative energy.

Totally false Bud.

Fact is Big Oil owns our government no matter who is in charge. They hedge their bets and donate nearly as much to Dems as Republicans.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Simply not true, McCain is for alternatives. Check out his web site. Also Bushes energy plan, that failed to pass would have set aside 10 Billion for alternative energy.
> 
> Totally false Bud.
> 
> Fact is Big Oil owns our government no matter who is in charge. They hedge their bets and donate nearly as much to Dems as Republicans.



Why do you lie?

Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Why do you lie?
> 
> Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets



How did I lie, Your site shows I am right, they donate to both sides.

A site that I might add is hardly unbiased.

I might have been wrong when I said Nearly as much, but that is hardly a lie. 

Why do you lie, or just ignore, that McCain supports alternatives?


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> How did I lie, Your site shows I am right, they donate to both sides.
> 
> A site that I might add is hardly unbiased.
> 
> ...



The site is a bipartisan nonprofit.

You lie again.

Center for Responsive Politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jreeves (Aug 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> We need alternative energy. We will not get it with the Republicans in power. They are owned by Big Oil.



Really show me where Exxon, Shell the company and others have directly contributed to Republicans campaigns.


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Really show me where Exxon, Shell the company and others have directly contributed to Republicans campaigns.



You are joking, right? You aren't really this naive?

Exxon Mobil - Money,Politics,Campaign Contributions,Exxon Mobil


----------



## Chris (Aug 4, 2008)

The overall industry numbers are about 70% Republican, 30% Democrat....

Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 4, 2008)

Sure kirk when I get something wrong I am just a liar, when you do well wait you never do. at least according to you. 

All you do is spew Leftest propaganda. excuse me if I assumed that was more of the same.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 4, 2008)

Kirk said:


> You are joking, right? You aren't really this naive?
> 
> Exxon Mobil - Money,Politics,Campaign Contributions,Exxon Mobil


Citizens' Guide
Corporations and Unions
*The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. *This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation.


The contributions are from people who work in the oil industry. Now tell me again how "Big Oil" has bought Republicans?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 4, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Sure kirk when I get something wrong I am just a liar, when you do well wait you never do. at least according to you.
> 
> All you do is spew Leftest propaganda. excuse me if I assumed that was more of the same.



Neither campaign receives one red penny from oil corporations. They receive money from people working in the industry. Its against federal election law for a corporation to give to a candidate. That's why Obama's new commerical about 'Big Oil' giving John Mccain 2 Million dollars is a lie.


----------



## editec (Aug 5, 2008)

SOME not-for-profits can contribute to political campaigns or parties

Some different types of NFP's cannot.

You can check this out by reading the directions for the IRS 990 tax forms if you're into that sort of thing.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 5, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Neither campaign receives one red penny from oil corporations. They receive money from people working in the industry. Its against federal election law for a corporation to give to a candidate. That's why Obama's new commerical about 'Big Oil' giving John Mccain 2 Million dollars is a lie.



So you think oil people give to McCain because they like ethanol? Honesty requires motive is clear, you can figure that out.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 5, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> So you think oil people give to McCain because they like ethanol? Honesty requires motive is clear, you can figure that out.



What industry are you in? Does that mean that the whole industry supports Obama? Could it be that the largest oil companies are headquartered in the South which is typically red states? Like say Exxon which its global headquarters is in say Texas....that's heavy democratic country there...


----------



## jreeves (Aug 5, 2008)

editec said:


> SOME not-for-profits can contribute to political campaigns or parties
> 
> Some different types of NFP's cannot.
> 
> You can check this out by reading the directions for the IRS 990 tax forms if you're into that sort of thing.



Not federally...

The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. *This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization*, profit or *nonprofit*. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> What industry are you in? Does that mean that the whole industry supports Obama? Could it be that the largest oil companies are headquartered in the South which is typically red states? Like say Exxon which its global headquarters is in say Texas....that's heavy democratic country there...



Did you hear he is giving it back, seems they know better than partisans like yourself.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 9, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Did you hear he is giving it back, seems they know better than partisans like yourself.[/QUOTE
> Link Please....
> 
> You calling me a partisan...priceless


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 9, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Neither campaign receives one red penny from oil corporations. They receive money from people working in the industry. Its against federal election law for a corporation to give to a candidate. That's why Obama's new commerical about 'Big Oil' giving John Mccain 2 Million dollars is a lie.



I'm callin BS.  I just heard that oil companies have given more to mccain but obama has received more from their employees.  And if that doesn't tell you something, nothing will.  Are you suggesting cnn lied?  are you saying corporations can't donate?  without having access to search because i'm on my internet phone, i'm willing to say you are wrong.  are you sure its illegal for corp to donate to campaigns?  I don't think so.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 9, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I'm callin BS.  I just heard that oil companies have given more to mccain but obama has received more from their employees.



once again you have know Idea what you are talking about. Nearly all the contributions attributed to "Oil Companies" are actually made by individuals who are in the Oil Industry. Of course you would know that if you ever actually did research and didn't always post stuff you "just heard"


----------



## jreeves (Aug 9, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I'm callin BS.  I just heard that oil companies have given more to mccain but obama has received more from their employees.  And if that doesn't tell you something, nothing will.  Are you suggesting cnn lied?  are you saying corporations can't donate?  without having access to search because i'm on my internet phone, i'm willing to say you are wrong.  are you sure its illegal for corp to donate to campaigns?  I don't think so.



Read for yourself deranged lunatic its right off the FEC's website.

The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml


----------



## Lode (Aug 10, 2008)

I couldn't bare to read all this thread. 

They're both politicians at this level because they've changed their opinions based on what they've seen, and also what's popular. I would frankly find it refreshing to see a canidate admit that they would be willing to change their position on several issues if evidence was presented to them that their position would be harmful to the country.

They've both done it so many times, that to argue who does it more will create a stunning list. Moreover, I'd look at what they've changed their positions on. I saw an impressive list on page 2 of some of the many positions that McCain has changed. 

Obama has changed his position on public financing. 

And McCain has changed his position on torture. 

I cannot trust the commitments of a man who's campaign message has largely relied on the overcoming horrors he's had to endure in war, reversing his position on torture.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 10, 2008)

Lode said:


> I couldn't bare to read all this thread.
> 
> They're both politicians at this level because they've changed their opinions based on what they've seen, and also what's popular. I would frankly find it refreshing to see a canidate admit that they would be willing to change their position on several issues if evidence was presented to them that their position would be harmful to the country.
> 
> ...



Link please, show how Mccain has campaigned on this?

MCcain has reversed his positions several times with about 30 years of public service as his background. While Obama has flip flopped more in this election cycle than Mccain has in his 30 years of public service.


----------



## cbi0090 (Aug 10, 2008)

Has anyone here every worked as a manager?  If so, you'll understand what I'm going to say, if not try to empathize.  I can't count how many times I've gone into a situation with one viewpoint and came out with another after I've gotten in the inside story.  It's called education.  

McCain and Obama, as presidential candidates, are getting the crash course on a lot of the inside stories on issues these days.  Not from their party, not from the press, but from the people whose feet are on the ground within the government who have been dealing with the heart of issues for years.  Even senators don't get the full picture, unless they are on every committee, and they don't let someone step into the presidential office naive.  We can only imagine the education they are getting.

Some of it is bound to look like flip flopping, some as bending to the polls, but if they are seriously concerned patriots (and I believe they both are) it has to be a rude awakening.  If they didn't change on some of their positions I'd be concerned, that their just not very bright.  It's always an interesting process to watch when they get to this point in the game.  You can almost see the weight of it all in their faces.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 10, 2008)

cbi0090 said:


> Has anyone here every worked as a manager?  If so, you'll understand what I'm going to say, if not try to empathize.  I can't count how many times I've gone into a situation with one viewpoint and came out with another after I've gotten in the inside story.  It's called education.



For a good part of my working career and I hear you in the sense that we do not always understand a situation till we hear all sides, but the issues on which McCain, in particular has changed his mind, are more in line with the republican party line and it is really why he was such a long shot. He had to flip flop to please the controlling elite, plain and simple.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 10, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> For a good part of my working career and I hear you in the sense that we do not always understand a situation till we hear all sides, but the issues on which McCain, in particular has changed his mind, are more in line with the republican party line and it is really why he was such a long shot. He had to flip flop to please the controlling elite, plain and simple.



Sure, Obama has flip flopped to appeal to independents but that is somehow understandable....


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 10, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> once again you have know Idea what you are talking about. Nearly all the contributions attributed to "Oil Companies" are actually made by individuals who are in the Oil Industry. Of course you would know that if you ever actually did research and didn't always post stuff you "just heard"



Sorry I listen to CNN.

I'm saying you are wrong!  Putting quotes around words doesn't make you right.

I heard Oil companies gave more to Mccain but oil company employees gave more to Obama.

What part about that isn't true?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Sorry I listen to CNN.
> 
> I'm saying you are wrong!  Putting quotes around words doesn't make you right.
> 
> ...



Link or proof?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 10, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sure, Obama has flip flopped to appeal to independents but that is somehow understandable....



What didn't McCain know when he said he would be for a windfall profit tax?  Now he flipped and would not consider it?  Same for making the tax breaks to the rich permenant.  2 situations where he was right and now is wrong.  So what makes a man go over to the dark side.  that's the question.


----------



## Konstantin (Aug 11, 2008)

Most idiotic and meanest label is flip flopper,
What meanest idiots propose - is an idioter!
Are you propose a party member be a copy,
As Bolshevics were replicas of Lenin's dupa?
Even if in error, he is strait, - not flip floppy.

It is your Obama that always changing skin,
Like instead of skin it is shape-shifting gear,
He use new hat for new audience - blend in
And read from paper blending plagio-mentir.
Another Russky lootering free speach den?

Konstantin.


----------



## editec (Aug 11, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Not federally...
> 
> The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. *This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization*, profit or *nonprofit*. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation.


 
Do feel free to go check out the real authority on this  subject...the IRS.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 11, 2008)

editec said:


> Do feel free to go check out the real authority on this  subject...the IRS.



Ok, so Corporations can't give directly, but what jreeves and charles wouldn't say is that PAC and Oil Company lobbyists give on behalf of the oil companies.  I bet they knew that and purposely misled me.  

They give 3 times as much to McCain.  

Think Progress  McCain Blogger Lies, Insinuates Obama Has Received More Money From Big Oil Than McCain

God I love the Google on the Internets.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 11, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Link or proof?



So I'm curious.  Did you really not know that oil companies give through pac's and lobbyists or were you jerking my chain?  I'll be honest.  I didn't know Corporations couldn't give.  Or I thought they could, but only a limited amount.  But I knew there were ways around that too.  

So did you know this?  Because either way, you are either dishonest or stupid.  Stupid if you thought oil companies gave more to Obama, or a liar if you tried to mislead us to think that when you knew it was not true.  

So it's one or the other.  Stupid or Dishonest.  Please let us all know when you are ready.  We are waiting.


----------



## Lode (Aug 11, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Link please, show how Mccain has campaigned on this?
> .



I appreciate you lobbing softballs. Here are some campaign ads.

_  Interviewer: How old are you?

    John McCain: Thirty one.

    Interviewer: What is your rank in the army?

    McCain: Lt. Commander in the Navy. &#8230; hit by either missile or anti-aircraft fire, I&#8217;m not sure which. And the plane continued straight down and I ejected and broke my leg and both arms.

    Interviewer: And your official number?

    McCain: 624787_


Another:
_
&#8220;A few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend one million dollars on the Woodstock concert museum. Now my friends, I wasn&#8217;t there. I&#8217;m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was, I was tied up at the time.&#8221;
_
And another:_

    &#8220;One night, after being mistreated as a POW, a guard loosened the ropes binding me, easing my pain.

    &#8220;On Christmas, that same guard approached me, and without saying a word, he drew a cross in the sand. We stood wordlessly looking at the cross, remembering the true light of Christmas.&#8221;_

A man who endured all this, and who will change his mind regarding torture is the worst sort of liar and snake imaginable. It shows cowardice not to hold your deepest convictions which McCain doesn't have.

EDIT: INCLUDED LINK. Can't post it till I have more responses. I'll get back to Johnny  El Floppo later.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> *What didn't McCain know when he said he would be for a windfall profit tax?*  Now he flipped and would not consider it?  Same for making the tax breaks to the rich permenant.  2 situations where he was right and now is wrong.  So what makes a man go over to the dark side.  that's the question.



I think your trying to say (its kind of hard to interpret) that MCcain was for a windfall profit tax on oil companies? If so please post a link to this assertion...
He has never supported a windfall profit tax...


Dipshit if you did any research, you would realize that the rich actually paid more under the Bush tax cuts.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 11, 2008)

editec said:


> Do feel free to go check out the real authority on this  subject...the IRS.



The real authority would be the Federal Elections commission...


----------



## jreeves (Aug 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> So I'm curious.  Did you really not know that oil companies give through pac's and lobbyists or were you jerking my chain?  I'll be honest.  I didn't know Corporations couldn't give.  Or I thought they could, but only a limited amount.  But I knew there were ways around that too.
> 
> So did you know this?  Because either way, you are either dishonest or stupid.  Stupid if you thought oil companies gave more to Obama, or a liar if you tried to mislead us to think that when you knew it was not true.
> 
> So it's one or the other.  Stupid or Dishonest.  Please let us all know when you are ready.  We are waiting.



You are really stupid aren't you, here you go. Here's the top PAC recipients for 2008....No where do I see MCcain's name.

Oil & Gas: Top PAC Recipients | OpenSecrets


----------



## Chris (Aug 12, 2008)

Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Sunday, July 27, 2008; Page A10 

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling. 
Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May. 

Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling - washingtonpost.com


----------



## jreeves (Aug 12, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling
> 
> By Matthew Mosk
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...



Genius...notice the highlighted area..


----------



## Jennifer.Bush (Aug 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> he has lobbyists running and financing his political machine.
> .



so what? is that against the law?  
obama takes money from oil men, just check his website he lists them


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 13, 2008)

Jennifer.Bush said:


> so what? is that against the law?
> obama takes money from oil men, just check his website he lists them



Boy, an internet celebrity! Flip flop is an interesting mental gymnastic.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 13, 2008)

Jennifer.Bush said:


> so what? is that against the law?
> obama takes money from oil men, just check his website he lists them



obama gets more money from oil company employees.  mccain gets more money from the oil companies through lobbyists.

Nothing illegal about it.  Just expect McCain to work in the best interest of Corporations and Obama will work in the best interests of American workers. 

Actually, Obama will work for both Corporations and Labor.  You will probably point to that and say, "see, he's no different" but you will be clueless about how he is at the same time working for the middle class.  That's because you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 13, 2008)

Sealybobo,  You think Jennifer is serious - only joking.  I had to look up the name. LOL

Photos - Jennifer Bush - Netscape Men's


----------



## Jennifer.Bush (Aug 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> obama gets more money from oil company employees.  mccain gets more money from the oil companies through lobbyists.
> 
> Nothing illegal about it.  Just expect McCain to work in the best interest of Corporations and Obama will work in the best interests of American workers.
> 
> Actually, Obama will work for both Corporations and Labor.  You will probably point to that and say, "see, he's no different" but you will be clueless about how he is at the same time working for the middle class.  That's because you don't know what you are talking about.


i guess he's working for the interest of Corporations by not taxing small business, appointing judges who will follow the LAW, and trying to win in Iraq


----------



## Chris (Aug 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Genius...notice the highlighted area..



 $1.1 million in two weeks. 

What do they expect in return?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 13, 2008)

Kirk said:


> $1.1 million in two weeks.
> 
> What do they expect in return?



What do the millions of other private individuals that give to both campaigns expect in return for their contributions?


----------



## muttamerican (Aug 14, 2008)

The Concord Coalition is a grassroots effort of fiscal responsibility.  According to Peter Peterson, author of Running on Empty and the former secretary of commerce under Nixon, Social Security is unsustainable as it is.  Scap it?, Reform it?, that is something that we will have to decide fairly soon here, being that we have a significant portion of our society getting ready to drawl on their accounts.  

My humble beliefs, we do need to supplement our aged.  Every healthy society should care for their young and their old.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 14, 2008)

muttamerican said:


> The Concord Coalition is a grassroots effort of fiscal responsibility.  According to Peter Peterson, author of Running on Empty and the former secretary of commerce under Nixon, Social Security is unsustainable as it is.  Scap it?, Reform it?, that is something that we will have to decide fairly soon here, being that we have a significant portion of our society getting ready to drawl on their accounts.
> 
> My humble beliefs, we do need to supplement our aged.  Every healthy society should care for their young and their old.



HUH! SS is not the issue, medical care is, and it the hardest part to control as medicine cannot be outsourced, nor does it compete globally as the AMA etc control the market. SS is fine. It is only the working poor who compete globally through a wal-mart mentality, so the least we can do is make sure they don't starve. 

Capitalism is for the poor socialism is for the rich. 

The Conservative Nanny State


----------



## muttamerican (Aug 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You are really stupid aren't you, here you go. Here's the top PAC recipients for 2008....No where do I see MCcain's name.
> 
> 
> Seriously Reeves, stop your blind attacks on the others in here.  Now again, are you trying to be deceiving or did YOU actually not do your homework?


----------



## newfnshow715 (Aug 16, 2008)

he flips then calls me his friend so i feel better


----------



## newfnshow715 (Aug 16, 2008)

I posted for him on his site and he gave me nothing, liar


----------



## jreeves (Aug 16, 2008)

muttamerican said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > You are really stupid aren't you, here you go. Here's the top PAC recipients for 2008....No where do I see MCcain's name.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> muttamerican said:
> 
> 
> > Oil & Gas: Top PAC Recipients | OpenSecrets
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Aug 16, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't think the gop are the party fighting alternative energy development and they do it because oil companies don't want alternatives that solve our dependence on oil.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > It's easy to say the Gop doesn't support alternative energy...when in fact your comment is a lie.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> What do the millions of other private individuals that give to both campaigns expect in return for their contributions?



We give to obama because we think he will work for the people. Corporate America gives more to mccain because he will work less for us and more for them.  

Obama will be fair to corporations but mccain won't be fair to us.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 16, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> We give to obama because we think he will work for the people. Corporate America gives more to mccain because he will work less for us and more for them.
> 
> Obama will be fair to corporations but mccain won't be fair to us.



Sure.
The New York Times > Log In
Mr. Obamas hedge fund contributors include: 

John Griffin, the founder of Blue Ridge Capital, who made $625 million in 2007, according to Alpha. Mr. Griffin is backing Mr. Obama after initially supporting Mitt Romney. 

Kenneth C. Griffin (no relation) of the Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, who earned $1.5 billion. He contributed to the Obama campaign after the senator came to his office last year. 

Stephen Mandel of Lone Pine Capital, who took home $710 million last year.

And, of course, George Soros, who earned almost $3 billion last year. It is no surprise that Mr. Soros, a Democratic stalwart, is backing Mr. Obama. Mr. Soros campaigned against President Bush in 2004, and Moveon.org, which the billionaire investor has plied with tens of millions of dollars, endorsed Mr. Obama in February.

Of course, not every Richie Rich is backing Mr. Obama. 

James H. Simons, the mathematician who runs Renaissance Technologies, who made $2.8 billion last year, has donated to Mrs. Clinton. 

And Steven Cohen of SAC Capital, whose take home pay was $900 million, is splitting his money down the middle: He donated $28,500 to both the Democratic and Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. (He had given money to John E. Sununu and Christopher J. Dodd.)

John Paulson of Paulson & Company, the top earner, with $3.7 billion last year, doesnt appear to have a financial dog left in the hunt: He gave to Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani. 

Philip Falcone, who founded Harbinger Partners and made $1.7 billion last year, has given to the Republican National Committee, but to no individual candidate. (His firm may have bought itself influence in another way: It recently won agreement from The New York Times Company to add two members to its board.)

Timothy Barakett of Atticus Capital, who made $750 million, and O. Andreas Halvorsen of Viking Global Investors, who earned $520 million, dont appear to have given money to either side.

By the way, just so we dont forget: these guys are not like you and me. The median American family earned $60,500 last year.

*So why is Mr. Obama such a popular choice among the hedge fund crowd?

In a word, access. Unlike Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is relatively new to national politics and is therefore open to bringing new people  and new money  into the tent. For money types who want a table, or at least to look involved and get an invitation to the right parties, Mr. Obama is the candidate. *


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 18, 2008)

jreeves said:


> By the way, just so we dont forget: these guys are not like you and me. The median American family earned $60,500 last year.



Earned! Earned? Someone would need to cure cancer to have earned a billion dollars in a single year, siphoned or awarded oneself the money is a more accurate term. High level executives and business people do not earn they take and because they occupy that position their taking is legal. 

Corporate Greed Condemns America

In the 1950s the American Dream became a reality. This was a time when a working man could support a family, own a house and maybe a new car, and send his kids to college. This was the dream of American GIs, the people who risked their lives in World War II and saved the world for Democracy. It was what they thought about when they were spending those long, terrifying nights in muddy foxholes.

This was a time of economic balance in the country. Workers salaries were miniscule compared with todays compensation packages, but a salary of less than $100 a week was enough for a person to buy a home and take care of his family. The house was probably a tract home, with four bedrooms, two baths, a yard and attached garage  nothing fancy, but a place the family could call home. It probably cost around $12,000 and the mere fact that you had a job meant you could qualify for a loan.

http://viewfromthemeadow.com/corporategreed.html
Corporate Greed vs. Public Good, Where America Sho
Corporate greed, corruption, and the coming collapse of America as we know it
Dishonesty, Greed and Hypocrisy in Corporate America


----------



## jreeves (Aug 18, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Earned! Earned? Someone would need to cure cancer to have earned a billion dollars in a single year, siphoned or awarded oneself the money is a more accurate term. High level executives and business people do not earn they take and because they occupy that position their taking is legal.
> 
> Corporate Greed Condemns America
> 
> ...



I didn't say what you quoted....So do me a favor *earn *yourself a trip on the little bus and come back when you can read...


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 18, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Earned! Earned? Someone would need to cure cancer to have earned a billion dollars in a single year, siphoned or awarded oneself the money is a more accurate term. High level executives and business people do not earn they take and because they occupy that position their taking is legal.
> 
> Corporate Greed Condemns America
> 
> ...



I'm sorry you took the time to explain to that idiot.  Your post was very well written and he totally blew of your points.

 sometimes I think maybe i'm not explaining myself well but after reading your post and then his reply, I know now they aren't  even listening.

they don't care.  they feel like conservanomics works for them.  even if they were affected, they are so conservative they still wouldn't put blame where it belongs.

I don't defend everything the democrats do, but I do seriously object to everything the gop has done for the last 8 yrs.  time to go.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 19, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I'm sorry you took the time to explain to that idiot.  Your post was very well written and he totally blew of your points.
> 
> sometimes I think maybe i'm not explaining myself well but after reading your post and then his reply, I know now they aren't  even listening.
> 
> ...



I'm sure you don't have a problem with quoting something that a person never said.....you are a skitzo afterall....

Go back through the thread jackass I never stated what Midcan, quoted me as saying....


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 19, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I didn't say what you quoted....So do me a favor *earn *yourself a trip on the little bus and come back when you can read...



I was railing against the use of the word. Stop crying.


The Conservative Nanny State

*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------

