McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[egoslicer]

Originally Posted by Khorum

A __LARGE__ part? Take that moralistic assumption aside for a moment and consider exactly where that 15 billion a month is going why don't you?

Do you think they dig a hole in Baghdad and throw that cash in there? Do you think they pay the soldiers, workers and contractors with HOPE? Do you think the millions of American military families, construction workers, sailors and pilots are all maintained with CHANGE?

Your hated "military-industrial complex" includes companies and communities as broad as the textile companies that make the camo clothing, to the small businesses that weave the kevlar, all the way to the teamsters and laborers that deliver, distribute and maintain the military's capabilities. It employs, feeds, clothes, and pays for the college tuitions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of American families.

And yet, just as you can't sustain an argument against the war based on military criteria (check) or political criteria (check), now you think you can make an argument against the war based on ECONOMIC criteria? The ONLY criteria that was never open to argument to begin with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manseed
The only substantial argument in those articles was that the war in Iraq is expensive. Chances are that we are merely experiencing the ebb and flow of a free economy, like we have for the past few hundred years.

You're kinda jumping into the middle of a conversation and pulling something out of context, I think. They are discussing the effect the war has had on the dollar and the economy under this administration, not that the money was necessarily wasteful - just its effect.

[Gilgamel]

Here's my question. Why does George Bush suddenly = republican party as a whole? Bush is a fuckup, but that doesn't mean every other republican is equally retarded and that suddenly McCain is going to become GW when he gets elected. There are a lot of very intelligent, very accomplished people in the republican party who think Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to it.

[Lalala]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Here's my question. Why does George Bush suddenly = republican party as a whole? Bush is a fuckup, but that doesn't mean every other republican is equally retarded and that suddenly McCain is going to become GW when he gets elected. There are a lot of very intelligent, very accomplished people in the republican party who think Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to it.

Bush has all the republican party behind him, so why would McCain go 180 degrees from Bush?

[egoslicer]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Here's my question. Why does George Bush suddenly = republican party as a whole? Bush is a fuckup, but that doesn't mean every other republican is equally retarded and that suddenly McCain is going to become GW when he gets elected. There are a lot of very intelligent, very accomplished people in the republican party who think Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to it.

Not sure. I may lean left socially, but almost every other issue I find myself very conservative. I'm for smaller government, fiscal responsibility and a strong military among other things. I find these issues more important than social ones such as abortion, yet I've yet to see a follow through on fiscal and bearucratic values that the party espouses. So I guess I vote democratic based on what history has shown me rather than rhetoric. I think if this were the 60s, I'd be a Goldwater Conservative for sure. Although I was very much in favor of Bush I, I must admit.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Mippo

Are you really arguing that Bush's economic policies were better then Clinton's? Are you completely oblivious to what has happened in this country during the last two presidencies?

Awwww, no more awesome CBPP revisionism? C'mon, you can dig up some criticism of the economy from before the mortgage collapse that may have some legs.

I mean sure, even nobel-laureat Joe Stiglitz had to stretch his argument to "predict" repercussions well beyond the tax cuts' expiration in 2011 but I'm sure if you tried HARD ENOUGH you can pretend that Bush's presidency only happened during the last year AFTER the mortgage crisis. I mean Stiglitz is wrong about the consequences of removing the tax cuts, since removing the tax cuts in 2011 would directly imperil 43 million American families, but I'm sure you could've rolled with something.

Unfortunately, Bush really DID preside over two years of the highest federal collections in US History. Bush truly DID preside over more robust economic expansions than Clinton's 1990's

You wanna talk COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS when in fact YOU have been blabbering about an imaginary "previous eight years" that is nothing more than a summary of the last 11 months?!

Originally Posted by Lalala

Dont forget the billions that went into Haliburton's pocket, oh, and Blackwater too!

Did you think for a second at all before ass-raping that submit button? Think real hard now: which nation's economies do Halliburton and Blackwater expend their ill-gotten gains in?

I know it's really hard for you, but the truth is that Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, LevelThree, Bechtel, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, GE, GMC, Ford, are ALL AMERICAN COMPANIES that contribute directly to the American economy.

They feed their employees' children, they sustain their retirees pensions, they present the ONLY healthcare providers for their personnel and they subsidize MILLIONS of college tuitions every year.

I realize that to a person whose biggest concerns is how to get into that party this weekend and who has never had to worry about his mortgage payments, or his kid's medical bills it's REALLY REALLY FUN to blame everything on the American companies that sustain our prosperity, but back in the real world, those companies are the only thing sustaining the well-being of MILLIONS of your countrymen.

[Lalala]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Did you think for a second at all before ass-raping that submit button? Think real hard now: which nation's economies do Halliburton and Blackwater expend their ill-gotten gains in?

I know it's really hard for you, but the truth is that Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, LevelThree, Bechtel, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, GE, GMC, Ford, are ALL AMERICAN COMPANIES that contribute directly to the American economy.

They feed their employees' children, they sustain their retirees pensions, they present the ONLY healthcare providers for their personnel and they subsidize MILLIONS of college tuitions every year.

Most of that money went mostly to already rich people, who did not need more, if the government hasnt spent those billions on the war, IT WOULD HAVE SPENT THEM ELSEWHERE IN THE ECONOMY.

You constantly claim the republican spend less, and when youre told they spend too much, then you tell us the spending is good, it make the economy run.

You're a fucking hypocrit.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Here's my question. Why does George Bush suddenly = republican party as a whole? Bush is a fuckup, but that doesn't mean every other republican is equally retarded and that suddenly McCain is going to become GW when he gets elected. There are a lot of very intelligent, very accomplished people in the republican party who think Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to it.

Probably McCain's support of Bush the past several years. Something that also turned many of his Independant support away from him.

Also, this:

[AladainAF]

BTW, those of you saying we had a surplus during the Clinton years need to go back to economics class. We haven't had a surplus since the 1800s if I remember.

Oh, you mean a BUDGET surplus. Gottcha. True! But not a "surplus". Paying off the debt is good, but to define that as a surplus in broad terms is inaccurate.

Anyway, our debt is in bad shape, and I'm pretty ashamed that Bush has spent so vigorously. Hopefully that'll change whomever gets elected next.

if the government hasnt spent those billions on the war, IT WOULD HAVE SPENT THEM ELSEWHERE IN THE ECONOMY.

Oh! So Iraq isn't why we are 10 trillion in debt. We would have been 10 trillion in debt without Iraq. Gottcha.

[Lalala]

Originally Posted by AladainAF

BTW, those of you saying we had a surplus during the Clinton years need to go back to economics class. We haven't had a surplus since the 1800s if I remember.

Oh, you mean a BUDGET surplus. Gottcha. True! But not a "surplus". Paying off the debt is good, but to define that as a surplus in broad terms is inaccurate.

Anyway, our debt is in bad shape, and I'm pretty ashamed that Bush has spent so vigorously. Hopefully that'll change whomever gets elected next.

Like you said, since the 1800, and probably the same for most of the countries, so its understood when one talk about a surplus, that it is always a budget surplus.

[Gilgamel]

Originally Posted by Lalala

Bush has all the republican party behind him, so why would McCain go 180 degrees from Bush?

That's just it. Aside from taxes and Notbeingjohnkerry Bush was never impressive to me, and to many others in the republican party. McCain is like Bush in that he doesn't fit all the conservative qualifiers, but McCain is essentially a baseline republican who fails on social issues, whereas Bush is a social conservative who fails on all the other baseline issues.

The thing republicans understand is that the American people can handle half of the conservative "checklist" at a time. They could handle Bush's social conservatism because he packaged himself as a compassionate(read nanny state) republican. Now they can handle McCain's candidacy because, while he remains true on national security and fiscal matters, he doesn't shove his nose up their ass on social issues. Republicans basically understand if we ever nominated our "perfect" candidate he would scare people and not get elected.

The democrats on the other hand seem to find someone as close to their rote beliefs as possible. That's why you end up with only Southern democrats winning the presidency(you can include Gore if you want) who don't come off as complete nutjob lefties and who appeal to the country as a whole. Instead you nominate the first and third most liberal senators in the country. Or Kerry(who was top 5) and a trial lawyer. Or Dukakis and Bentsen.

Why you don't just find a nice, moderate, southern governor to win the white house and let Pelosi and Reid ramrod your agenda through I'll never know, but I appreciate the decision not to.

People want strong + moderate. Republicans pull that off even when our strong is a functioning retard(Bush) and our moderate sang bomb bomb Iran. Democrats don't seem to be able to pull this off.

[Jedite]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Here's my question. Why does George Bush suddenly = republican party as a whole? Bush is a fuckup, but that doesn't mean every other republican is equally retarded and that suddenly McCain is going to become GW when he gets elected. There are a lot of very intelligent, very accomplished people in the republican party who think Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to it.

Oh I don't know.. Maybe because they both represent the same party that ridiculed John Kerrys service record, and praises John McCains. The same party that elected and re-elected Bush, to whom McCain gave his full support. Hmm did Bush not appear through a big screen TV at the Convention? McCain has only superficially tried to distance himself from Bush, but hasn't publicly said anything against the current president.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by egoslicer

You're kinda jumping into the middle of a conversation and pulling something out of context, I think. They are discussing the effect the war has had on the dollar and the economy under this administration, not that the money was necessarily wasteful - just its effect.

No we aren't. Khorum is correct. Nobody here is saying that war isn't expensive. The point is that depending on your opinion it could be a necessary cost. Like hurricane Katrina, very expensive but very necessary to help those people. Maybe you think the war was wrong, in which case you could argue that it was money wasted. But, at this point it becomes a matter of personal opinion.

[Manseed]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Here's my question. Why does George Bush suddenly = republican party as a whole? Bush is a fuckup, but that doesn't mean every other republican is equally retarded and that suddenly McCain is going to become GW when he gets elected. There are a lot of very intelligent, very accomplished people in the republican party who think Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to it.

Because that's the only way to get at McCain. The entire Obama campaign is based on McCain and Bush being the same person, which is a flat out lie and entirely incorrect.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

That's just it. Aside from taxes and Notbeingjohnkerry Bush was never impressive to me, and to many others in the republican party. McCain is like Bush in that he doesn't fit all the conservative qualifiers, but McCain is essentially a baseline republican who fails on social issues, whereas Bush is a social conservative who fails on all the other baseline issues.

The thing republicans understand is that the American people can handle half of the conservative "checklist" at a time. They could handle Bush's social conservatism because he packaged himself as a compassionate(read nanny state) republican. Now they can handle McCain's candidacy because, while he remains true on national security and fiscal matters, he doesn't shove his nose up their ass on social issues. Republicans basically understand if we ever nominated our "perfect" candidate he would scare people and not get elected.

The democrats on the other hand seem to find someone as close to their rote beliefs as possible. That's why you end up with only Southern democrats winning the presidency(you can include Gore if you want) who don't come off as complete nutjob lefties and who appeal to the country as a whole. Instead you nominate the first and third most liberal senators in the country. Or Kerry(who was top 5) and a trial lawyer. Or Dukakis and Bentsen.

Why you don't just find a nice, moderate, southern governor to win the white house and let Pelosi and Reid ramrod your agenda through I'll never know, but I appreciate the decision not to.

People want strong + moderate. Republicans pull that off even when our strong is a functioning retard(Bush) and our moderate sang bomb bomb Iran. Democrats don't seem to be able to pull this off.

So you're saying Democrats lose because they run on what they actually believe and the Republicans win because they pander?

[kegkilla]

i signed up to register to vote with some guy out in front of my campus today but i checked republican and after i gave him the form he told me he was from move-on.org. should i be worried about him throwing out my registration form? seems like something a little liberal sissy would do.