NationStates Jolt Archive

Try to keep this one to general comment, please, folks. Other threads are available for Clinton vs Obama (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554117) and for polls, graphs and number-crunching (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13602779#post13602779).

Woo first post in new thread!

Woo first post in new thread!

Can I have your autograph?

True NS style... nobody wants to talk issues, but straight away somebody wants Ruffy's autograph. I Love this place :p

Shouldn't this be in the USA election mega-thread?

Anyways, as for me the issues that concern me the most are the following:
Taxes (Are they in favor of more tax cuts, or tax hikes?)
Size and power of Government (is the candidate going to cut down Government's size and power, or increase it?)
Alternative Fuel (Are they pro-AF?)
War in Iraq (What's their plan for it?)
and the Health industries.

are Europeans allowed to play or would that be like a Gypsy talking about paying parking fines?

polls, graphs and number-crunching (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13602779#post13602779).

link broken *grumbles about inefficient mods and how we should privatize them*

straight away somebody wants Ruffy's autograph.

TSI = Ruffy? :eek:

Shouldn't this be in the USA election mega-thread?

No, I've locked that after protests that it had become unreadable. There are now three threads: this one (general issues), Democrat nomination (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554117), and polls. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13602779#post13602779)


link broken *grumbles about inefficient mods and how we should privatize them*

Though ideologically opposed to such a move, I look forward to

award wages
public holiday loading
holiday pay
overtime
production bonuses
skill loading
seniority loading
regulated working conditions
training allowance
travel allowance
entertainment allowance
education allowance
group health insurance concession
hazard allowance
clothing allowance
meal allowance ...


There are a few other things we can talk about later, too.

And the link's fixed now; 'course, there's this $100 call-out fee ...

SNIP

you seem to assume that you have an Internet right to form unions and demand these things :p

*calls in scab versions of Ardchoille*

No, I've locked that after protests that it had become unreadable.

you could just lock all election threads in a Zimbabwe-ish plan to see what happens?

<snip>

Too late. The Unity of Labour Is the Hope of the World.

Okay, I'll pull this back on track with a relatively minor issue. It's one that rankles me, though.

Why is it that supporting gay marriage is still political suicide in the United States? There obviously isn't a mainstream candidate who supports gay marriage. John McCain is completely against it, Hillary Clinton seems to be in the "if I have to support gay relations, I support civil unions" camp (that is, very reluctantly), and Barack Obama believes in the "separate but equal" civil union.

Okay, I'll pull this back on track with a relatively minor issue. It's one that rankles me, though.

Why is it that supporting gay marriage is still political suicide in the United States? There obviously isn't a mainstream candidate who supports gay marriage. John McCain is completely against it, Hillary Clinton seems to be in the "if I have to support gay relations, I support civil unions" camp (that is, very reluctantly), and Barack Obama believes in the "separate but equal" civil union.

It really isn't suicide; it's just a sure way to put the Religious Right offside.

The RR is an organized voting bloc in the US, and that gives it power beyond it's size. the RR is about 15% of the population, but can rely on a much larger than standard percentage of that to actually vote. This means they can waaay outvote , say, the Atheists, at 11%, because the Atheist "bloc" is unorganized.

If the Gay/Lesbian Alliance types got a good, solid, voting bloc behind them, things would change real fast; the moderate/left candidates (who probably wouldn't get the RR votes anyway) might well court the G/L votes as a counterweight.

If I had to choose a single overriding issue for me, it would be making the U.S. energy independent...it would have tremendous positive effects on the economy and foreign policy, as well as being a pretty smart idea, given current environmental issues.

Diversification is the key...people seem to latch on to one idea or another, but there's nothing that says that the use of, say, solar power, excludes the use of other alternative energy sources.

The biggest problem is what to do about gasoline, since it is so essential to the logistical network of the country, and is not readily replaceable. This eventually falls on the shoulders of automakers, which will likely have to be roped into doing what needs to be done by the government.

It really isn't suicide; it's just a sure way to put the Religious Right offside.

The RR is an organized voting bloc in the US, and that gives it power beyond it's size. the RR is about 15% of the population, but can rely on a much larger than standard percentage of that to actually vote. This means they can waaay outvote , say, the Atheists, at 11%, because the Atheist "bloc" is unorganized.

If the Gay/Lesbian Alliance types got a good, solid, voting bloc behind them, things would change real fast; the moderate/left candidates (who probably wouldn't get the RR votes anyway) might well court the G/L votes as a counterweight.
Exactly. The key is figuring out how to get said candidates to start courting that vote and get it organized.

Okay, I'll pull this back on track with a relatively minor issue. It's one that rankles me, though.

Why is it that supporting gay marriage is still political suicide in the United States? There obviously isn't a mainstream candidate who supports gay marriage. John McCain is completely against it, Hillary Clinton seems to be in the "if I have to support gay relations, I support civil unions" camp (that is, very reluctantly), and Barack Obama believes in the "separate but equal" civil union.

Most the majority of Americans are Christian bigots. Yes, I said bigots. Hiding behind your religion and using it as an excuse to deny people rights is still bigotry. The Christians that dont have a problem with gays are a minority. And the Republicans would whip their voting base into a frenzy to vote against that candidate.

Funny how the "Issues" thread is the shortest of the election threads. Perhaps it is a reflection of the actual campaign?

It really isn't suicide; it's just a sure way to put the Religious Right offside.

The RR is an organized voting bloc in the US, and that gives it power beyond it's size. the RR is about 15% of the population, but can rely on a much larger than standard percentage of that to actually vote. This means they can waaay outvote , say, the Atheists, at 11%, because the Atheist "bloc" is unorganized.

If the Gay/Lesbian Alliance types got a good, solid, voting bloc behind them, things would change real fast; the moderate/left candidates (who probably wouldn't get the RR votes anyway) might well court the G/L votes as a counterweight.
I think you're just making up numbers, but I agree with your main point: the Christian Right is organized, and can vote accordingly.

I'm honestly curious to see what would happen if the Democrats suddenly became socially conservative. Right now, its religious facade is the only thing the Republican Party can offer to the average voter. Otherwise it works for a minority of the economically elite. If the Democrats started saying, "Yes, we support prayer in school, too," I'm interested to see how long it would take for the Republicans to fade away into meaninglessness.

Funny how the "Issues" thread is the shortest of the election threads. Perhaps it is a reflection of the actual campaign?

How true. Sadly true.

I think Gun Rights/Control will play a suprisingly large part in the later presidential campagin. With the Heller case being decided soon, we shall see a flurry of Anti or Pro-Gun legislation be put forward in the state legislatures. And if a new AWB is passed by a Democratic congress, that might prove very bad for them. Remember, Gun owners got pissed at Bush I, and helped cost him the election in 1992.

I think you're just making up numbers, but I agree with your main point: the Christian Right is organized, and can vote accordingly.

I'm honestly curious to see what would happen if the Democrats suddenly became socially conservative. Right now, its religious facade is the only thing the Republican Party can offer to the average voter. Otherwise it works for a minority of the economically elite. If the Democrats started saying, "Yes, we support prayer in school, too," I'm interested to see how long it would take for the Republicans to fade away into meaninglessness.

Actually, the numbers come from two sources; the 15% from the Democrats' estimates of their voting power at the last election, and the 11% is the percentage of the population claimed by the American Atheists association. I don't make any particular claims as to their accuracy, but they seem to be pretty good 'ballpark' figures. (The Religious Right has at various times claimed to represent the majority of Americans; this is obviously wrong, or they'd have swept every poll).

15% doesn't sound like much, but you shouldn't forget that voter turnout in the US can be as low as 30% in some areas (though I understand 40-50% is more common). Even at 50%, if all of them vote, that's a whopping 30% of the actual vote, and that's powerful.

Funny how the "Issues" thread is the shortest of the election threads. Perhaps it is a reflection of the actual campaign?

You think?

It really isn't suicide; it's just a sure way to put the Religious Right offside.

The RR is an organized voting bloc in the US, and that gives it power beyond it's size. the RR is about 15% of the population, but can rely on a much larger than standard percentage of that to actually vote. This means they can waaay outvote , say, the Atheists, at 11%, because the Atheist "bloc" is unorganized.

If the Gay/Lesbian Alliance types got a good, solid, voting bloc behind them, things would change real fast; the moderate/left candidates (who probably wouldn't get the RR votes anyway) might well court the G/L votes as a counterweight.

The atheist vote could never organise as a voting bloc though. Although statistically an atheist is slightly more likely to vote democrat, there is (by definition) no particular shared values/beliefs/lifestyles etc between atheists as a group, as opposed to the way the christian group rally around abortion, family issues and church/state linkage.

I'd like to see the LGBT start organising better though.

I'd like to see the issue of climate change seriously addressed in this election.

election issues eh?
hmmm how's about giving the vote to people from other countries to vote for your president?

For me the biggest issue is the economy, primarily the growing rich-poor divide and how it seems big businesses have most of the power in the country. I'd like to see tax cuts go to low-income people as oppose to rich people, I'd like to see more done in the way of employee rights and cracking down on companies like Wal Mart that can't quite comprehend that their employees are human.

Health care is another very big issue, especially how we need a system with both universal and privatized health care. Everyone should have access to healthcare, but those who can get better or different should be allowed to.

Third for me is the war in Iraq, specifically how we shouldn't be there because we never should've been there.

For me the biggest issue is the economy, primarily the growing rich-poor divide and how it seems big businesses have most of the power in the country.

I think a big issue that needs to be addressed is campaign finance reform. As long as big business are able to legally bribe candidates the agenda will always be set by them.

Funny how the "Issues" thread is the shortest of the election threads. Perhaps it is a reflection of the actual campaign?
Well, that's partially part of the problem, yes, but in this case I think there's really not THAT much to talk about that isn't already discussed here in its own way in one thread or another anyway. Most of us have already had our say on the issues before this thread was made, and unless something new and major crops up, I don't expect this thread to grow all that large.

Funny how the "Issues" thread is the shortest of the election threads. Perhaps it is a reflection of the actual campaign?

Well, that's partially part of the problem, yes, but in this case I think there's really not THAT much to talk about that isn't already discussed here in its own way in one thread or another anyway. Most of us have already had our say on the issues before this thread was made, and unless something new and major crops up, I don't expect this thread to grow all that large.

Also, let's be honest-- the race on everybody's minds right now is the Democratic nomination, and both of the candidates in that race have very similar positions on the issues, so it's really not a point of discussion. (This is also why I think further debates aren't all that important in the race-- they agree on too much and they've had more than enough already.)

Actually, the numbers come from two sources; the 15% from the Democrats' estimates of their voting power at the last election, and the 11% is the percentage of the population claimed by the American Atheists association. I don't make any particular claims as to their accuracy, but they seem to be pretty good 'ballpark' figures. (The Religious Right has at various times claimed to represent the majority of Americans; this is obviously wrong, or they'd have swept every poll).

15% doesn't sound like much, but you shouldn't forget that voter turnout in the US can be as low as 30% in some areas (though I understand 40-50% is more common). Even at 50%, if all of them vote, that's a whopping 30% of the actual vote, and that's powerful.

My mistake. Thank you for the sources.

Most the majority of Americans are Christian bigots. Yes, I said bigots. Hiding behind your religion and using it as an excuse to deny people rights is still bigotry. The Christians that dont have a problem with gays are a minority. And the Republicans would whip their voting base into a frenzy to vote against that candidate.

If statistics are to be believed, then not only are the majority of Americans Christian, but a majority of them don't really care enough about politics to grant or deny rights.

Where you see bigotry I see toxic levels of apathy and cynicism.

Issues important to me this coming fall:

War in Iraq/Afghanistan
Warmongering with Iran
Economic recession
Health care (specifically banning the marketing of drugs to physicians)
Alternative energy (I'm a big time nuclear power fan, if it works for France it can for us)
The abuse of the Judicial Department by the administration.
I would like to see the drinking age lowered to 18
I would like a moratorium on all government recognized marriages. I believe marriages are a religious issue and that all legal matters relating to it can be accomplished with written legal contracts.
My right to own a firearm
Getting rid of 'don't ask don't tell'.
Getting rid of the Department of Education, Homeland Security and the IRS

Issues important to me this coming fall:
I would like a moratorium on all government recognized marriages. I believe marriages are a religious issue and that all legal matters relating to it can be accomplished with written legal contracts.]

Im sorry, but thats absurd. Are you saying that every atheist should have to go through a church to get married?


Getting rid of 'don't ask don't tell'.


A really good idea actually. Theyd get more recruits then. And anyone whos heard of the Sacred Band of Thebes knows that the myth that homosexuals arent tough enough to be in the military is totally baseless.

Getting rid of the Department of Education, Homeland Security and the IRS



Which only the loon that is Ron Paul wanted to do. The IRS is important, and getting rid of the Department of Education would be a bad idea. We need a federal standard of education and cericulum.

A really good idea actually. Theyd get more recruits then. And anyone whos heard of the Sacred Band of Thebes knows that the myth that homosexuals arent tough enough to be in the military is totally baseless.

"Don't ask don't tell" should really be replaced with "We don't give a fuck."

The point being that the military is about several things, none of them involving sex. Or relationships beyond that of the menage-a-trois between a soldier, his country and his assault rifle.

Im sorry, but thats absurd. Are you saying that every atheist should have to go through a church to get married?


No, not necessarily. People can just essentially say, "Ok we are 'married' or 'joined'" and draw up the paperwork necessary. The vast majority of aspects relating to marriage can be accomplished via a contract between two persons.

Which only the loon that is Ron Paul wanted to do. The IRS is important, and getting rid of the Department of Education would be a bad idea. We need a federal standard of education and cericulum.

Education is a section of government reserved entirely to the states. The IRS does nothing but but cause headaches for Americans and has absolutely no oversight; it acts as a law unto itself.

I would like a moratorium on all government recognized marriages. I believe marriages are a religious issue and that all legal matters relating to it can be accomplished with written legal contracts.

You do realize that the government has to recognize a contract for it to carry legal weight, right?

Once you realize that fact, what you'll see that what you're really advocating is:

(a) making the whole thing much, much more inconvenient for all people involved. You're basically suggesting that, instead of having a standard in use, every married couple should have to spend hundreds of dollars on legal fees reinventing the wheel.

(b)getting rid of some of the protections of civil marriage. While many of the protections associated with marriage can be covered by contract law, not all of them can. Marriage designates a couple as a single legal entity for many purposes, which means that the government (as well as creditors/etc.) are, in essence, parties to the contract. A contract signed by two people cannot bind others to treat them in a certain way.

Getting rid of the Department of Education, Homeland Security and the IRS


I don't really agree with getting rid of the DoE or Homeland Security (although the latter could be re-integrated with other departments), but I never understand the whole "get rid of the IRS" argument. If we are to have a government, it must have money with which to run itself. Regardless of how taxes are levied, they are going to be levied. And some government entity is going to be responsible for collecting those taxes. People who argue that they want to get rid of the IRS are really arguing, essentially, that they want to rename it.

No, not necessarily. People can just essentially say, "Ok we are 'married' or 'joined'" and draw up the paperwork necessary. The vast majority of aspects relating to marriage can be accomplished via a contract between two persons.

....after hundreds of dollars of legal fees and a great deal of paperwork to do something that can currently be accomplished with maybe $50 and a single form....

Altering the marriage standards in the way you suggest would be a very bad idea. We certainly should recognize homosexual marriage, but doing it that way would be stupid.

Secondly, there is no reason to get rid of the Department of Education. I know you're going to rebut with some points about how the education system is messed up, but I don't give a damn. Getting rid of the DoE would not solve the problem; it would make things far worse. The problem is in the methods currently being used, not in the system itself.

Third, as Dem said, the IRS is here to stay, unless you suggest the government abandon all taxes, in which case I highly suggest you read Jennifer Government for a good outlook on why that would be a really bad idea.

Fourthly, the Department of Homeland Security is actually a pretty useful department and one that should have been made a long time ago. I think, however, it deserves a wee bit better name, to take into account its various organizations and tools.

Funny how the "Issues" thread is the shortest of the election threads. Perhaps it is a reflection of the actual campaign?

Or, oh, I don't know, it could be that the election everyone is focused on is between two candidates in the same party and there is a thread for that.

Most the majority of Americans are Christian bigots. Yes, I said bigots. Hiding behind your religion and using it as an excuse to deny people rights is still bigotry. The Christians that dont have a problem with gays are a minority. And the Republicans would whip their voting base into a frenzy to vote against that candidate.Funny you would use the word "bigotry".... :rolleyes:

What sweet, sweet irony.

We need a federal standard of education and cericulum.
You need a higher federal standard of education and a better curriculum.
"Don't ask don't tell" should really be replaced with "We don't give a fuck."

The point being that the military is about several things, none of them involving sex. Or relationships beyond that of the menage-a-trois between a soldier, his country and his assault rifle.
Short of a relationship between an officer and a subordinate, or a soldier and an enemy soldier, I can't see why the military should really care what those in it get up to in the bedroom.
Education is a section of government reserved entirely to the states. The IRS does nothing but but cause headaches for Americans and has absolutely no oversight; it acts as a law unto itself.

Imagine the headaches of living in a country with a government that cannot collect taxes. If you don't have a funded government you may as well have none.

Funny how the "Issues" thread is the shortest of the election threads.
And the first to fall into "zombie" status...

Some of the biggest issues for me are as follows and not necessarily in order of importance.

Energy: I want to see us drilling in Anwar and off the coast of Florida and California and building nuclear power plants. Investment should also be made in other alternative energy sources.

Taxes: I want to see the Fair Tax put in place and the IRS done away with.

Education: I want to see the Federal Government get the hell out of K-12 education. All this "no child left behind" crap has served to have teachers teach the test while real learning goes down the toilet. Do away with the Department of Education and take the money saved and send it to the states.

Foreign aid and the UN: Let's stop sending money to places that just use those dollars for graft and corruption.

Immigration: Let's put a stop to illegal immigration (from all countries) and reform the immigration process. I like Canada's immigration policies.

ayone else find it amusing that the thread that concerns what is actually important about electing a representative is the smallest of the three devoted to the us election? apparently quibling over statistics and personality cults is more iteresting. who knew?...

anyone else find it amusing that the thread that concerns what is actually important about electing a representative is the smallest of the three devoted to the US election?

It's more sad than amusing, but yeah.


I'm not going to list all my issues as many of them have been raised already (GLBT rights, etc.) but I would like to see abolishment of the death penalty addressed more, especially with the Supreme Court's recent ruling.

ayone else find it amusing that the thread that concerns what is actually important about electing a representative is the smallest of the three devoted to the us election? apparently quibling over statistics and personality cults is more iteresting. who knew?...

the purpose of the thread is to discuss the policy differences between john mccain and the eventual democratic candidate.

is it our fault mccain is so boring?

we can discuss his health care "plan" if you like...

ayone else find it amusing that the thread that concerns what is actually important about electing a representative is the smallest of the three devoted to the us election? apparently quibling over statistics and personality cults is more iteresting. who knew?...

Because this thread is about the general election. There is a thread for the democratic nomination and discuss issues with that and because it's undecided, it's the focus right now. It has nothing to do with no one caring about the issues, and everything to do with not knowing who will be in the general.

Which only the loon that is Ron Paul wanted to do. The IRS is important, and getting rid of the Department of Education would be a bad idea. We need a federal standard of education and cericulum.

I don't know if this was intentional or not. Either way, it's really funny. :p

IMHO, the biggest problems facing america are the healthcare system and the war in iraq.

On healthcare i support an Obama style universal coverage, but for Iraq i support a McCain style position of responsibility for what we wrongly started.

Am i too confused or is there some mix of both Obama and McCain?

I suggest finding a third party candidate that supports your veiws, or if that fails, support Obama.

You should support Obama, who will probably cave on Iraq if he wins.

Go with McCain.

no there is no way of reconciling your 2 positions with a "correct" vote.

pay some attention to both candidates, listen to a few speeches, think about ALL their stances, consider if you want a president of the same party as congress or not.

if you pay attention, the better choice will be obvious long before november.

Ron Paul! /sarcasm

Am i too confused or is there some mix of both Obama and McCain?
Do we have any photo-shoppers who could oblige him? Yes, we Cain!

Taxes: I want to see the Fair Tax put in place and the IRS done away with.

Who would collect the fair tax taxes?

Sorry, St Edmund (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550452) ... the U.S. Senate has ruled McCain is constitutionally qualified to be president:

Originally Posted by The New York Times http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01citizen.html?ref=politics)

Senate Says McCain Is Qualified
By CARL HULSE
Published: May 1, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday delivered its judgment on a constitutional question involving one of its own and formally declared that Senator John McCain is eligible to be president — at least from a citizenship perspective.

Weighing in on an arcane question that has arisen because of Mr. McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone, the Senate without opposition approved a nonbinding resolution recognizing that Mr. McCain is a natural-born citizen.

Among the basic qualifications the Constitution lays out for president is that the person be a natural-born citizen, a phrase not defined and one that has been subjected to various interpretations.

At the request of Mr. McCain’s campaign, two constitutional lawyers studied the issue and found in favor of Mr. McCain, whose father was stationed in the zone with the Navy when the future candidate was born. Colleagues of both parties in the Senate, including his two potential Democratic rivals, concur.

“There is no evidence of the intention of the framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s president,” the resolution said.

It does not have the power of law. Its authors, chiefly Senators Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, both Democrats, said they wanted the Senate clearly on record.Their opinion has no legal weight, but whatever. Interesting that the chief sponsors of the resolution are both Democrats.

Their opinion has no legal weight
I'm not sure about that. If the House goes along, then since the House and Senate are the ones who count the electoral votes (in joint session) and declare who won, their opinions on eligibility are probably decisive.

Not to mention making clear the opinion of the Congress to the Supreme Court, should it fall to them to decide. And if you think that opinion is meaningless, I have a bridge to sell you.

Speaking as a Brit...

The big issue for me is the economy and how America can get out of recession without creating a new unsustainable boom.

Other important issues include how to deal with Iraq, funding health and education and the extent to which religion should be entwined with politics.

Usually, the Supreme Court refuses to decide on such things, deferring entirely to the other branches (this is called the "political questions" doctrine). The Gush v. Bore decision was an aberration, showing that the Court can of course butt in, but usually it just doesn't, on this kind of issue.

So what do y'all think of this gas tax holiday? In my eyes, it's silly politicking. I haven't seen a single economist support the movie and scores have come out against it. If there was ever evidence of the difference in the three candidates, I'd say this highlights it. One wants to give the "holiday" but not pay for it, one wants to give the "holiday" even though it won't do any good, and one regards it as the "pretend like we're doing something" politics. You can tell which one I think is the better approach.

So what do y'all think of this gas tax holiday? In my eyes, it's silly politicking. I haven't seen a single economist support the movie and scores have come out against it. If there was ever evidence of the difference in the three candidates, I'd say this highlights it. One wants to give the "holiday" but not pay for it, one wants to give the "holiday" even though it won't do any good, and one regards it as the "pretend like we're doing something" politics. You can tell which one I think is the better approach.


There was an article in Newsweek I read where gas companies in private have said that if there is a gas holiday, they will raise gas prices even more after the holiday is up to make up for lost revenue.


So....

So what do y'all think of this gas tax holiday? In my eyes, it's silly politicking. I haven't seen a single economist support the movie and scores have come out against it. If there was ever evidence of the difference in the three candidates, I'd say this highlights it. One wants to give the "holiday" but not pay for it, one wants to give the "holiday" even though it won't do any good, and one regards it as the "pretend like we're doing something" politics. You can tell which one I think is the better approach.

At first, just looking at it from the "save me money!" attitude, it seemed like a good idea. But once I really started thinking about it, it really doesn't. Once I heard the numbers, it doesn't seem like it's going to be a big help to individuals. Doing it without paying for it, of course, further increases an already astronomical debt without really helping anyone much. And the plan to pay for it is to tax the oil companies. I'm fairly certain that such a move would simply lead to increased prices to cover the debt, which would mean that the "holiday" really wouldn't help at all.

I think two of the candidates are putting these things forth not as solutions, but as a way to pacify the people - to sound like they're doing something in the hopes that most people will just hear "less taxes" and never look very closely. Unfortunately, I also think there are a lot of people like that out there.

There was an article in Newsweek I read where gas companies in private have said that if there is a gas holiday, they will raise gas prices even more after the holiday is up to make up for lost revenue.


So....

Well, actually, there will be no lost revenue for them under McCain's plan. In fact, one would expect that consumption will rise as a result of the holiday and, thus, they'll see increased revenue.

Under Clinton's plan we can expect that they will raise prices but leave a little room to cause people to "feel" like they're saving money and increase consumption. Doing so will cover the tax the oil companies will be paying AND will allow them to leave the prices inflated when the tax is done. Thus, actually thrusting increased costs on the consumer.

Obama doesn't have an alternative, but he's right that nothing is better than these collossally stupid plans.

These aren't solutions. They're anti-solutions. They will increase consumption and increase cost to the customer. In all cases, it doesn't begin to address the problem for either consumers or energy.

Well, actually, there will be no lost revenue for them under McCain's plan. In fact, one would expect that consumption will rise as a result of the holiday and, thus, they'll see increased revenue.

Under Clinton's plan we can expect that they will raise prices but leave a little room to cause people to "feel" like they're saving money and increase consumption. Doing so will cover the tax the oil companies will be paying AND will allow them to leave the prices inflated when the tax is done. Thus, actually thrusting increased costs on the consumer.

Obama doesn't have an alternative, but he's right that nothing is better than these collossally stupid plans.

These aren't solutions. They're anti-solutions. They will increase consumption and increase cost to the customer. In all cases, it doesn't begin to address the problem for either consumers or energy.

No one, for example, has a plan to start developing more alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, and advanced nuclear (I'm talking about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor).

We need to stop using oil as a fuel (we'll still need it for fertilizers and plastics).

Sadly, there is news from the McCain camp. Saying that McCain has "lost his bearings" a saying that means he's headed the wrong direction, according to McCain's camp, is an attack on his age. Um, what?

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php

However, if you read the entire letter, apparently, a completely inoccuous comment that says McCain is pointed in the wrong direction is ageism, but holding up a comment from a Hammas leader is just a comment on "leadership and judgment". It's amazing to me that this kind of campaigning ever gets a vote.

Okay, time to focus on the future...

In all the hubbub over the nomination, I thought I'd actually check to see what John McCain was doing and this article was interesting, although the web article is not as long as print.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/08/america/mccain.php)

One of those conservatives is the Reverend Richard Land, an official with the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States and one known for its conservative streak. He wrote last month to McCain and to the Democratic aspirants, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, urging them to speak out about human trafficking. Land has also spoken to McCain about promoting religious freedom overseas and cracking down on child pornography on the Internet, which McCain has focused on as a member of the U.S. Senate.

On Wednesday, Land pronounced himself "delighted" with McCain's speech. "He was ringing all the Southern Baptist bells," Land said by telephone. "This shows that Senator McCain is making it clear it will be a priority commitment, and that's very important to my constituency."

My guess is that he's using the time where all the focus is on the nomination to reach out to the religious right while hovering relatively under the radar. He can put all his efforts into this now and focus on the middle ground when the actual race is on.

In terms of weaknesses there's his age of course, I think his bad-temper will be an issue, especially in terms this quote from Senator Thad Cochrane:

"...the thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine...", in an extended long discourse on McCain and his temper.

As for Barack Obama, I just feel race will be an issue, not necessarily just black and white but also hispanics who might feel a black president will not be interested in them at all - purely a guess but, anyway, for those interested, I thought this article was really nice and I think it's another good angle for him, especially winning over the female vote.

The mother from Kansas (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/08/opinion/edgoodman.php)

Personally, I am coming round to the idea that Barack Obama can take it, the more I read on John McCain, the more I see his problems.

I'm not going to put a poll on this in terms of Obama vs. McCain because the results are too obvious but I might put one up on what people think the issues are.

Anyway, Barack Obama in the blue corner weighing 250 years of race and John McCain in the red corner weighing 81 years of age.

Ding ding...

P.S. If my some bizarre twist, Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, this thread is useless because the damage to the Democrats will just be too much.

Okay, time to focus on the future...

OK

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555712

And that's just foreign policy. Nearly every aspect of McCains platform is stuck 4 to 8 years in the past.

Obama will crush McCain. McCain cannot dissaociate himself from eight years of inept Republican leadership, six of which were accompanied by a Republican controlled Congress. Once Obama's nomination is finalized, people will quickly see that McCain brings nothing new to the discussion.

On nearly every issue that matters, McCain is caving to the far-right, in a desperate attempt to show that he's "their" canidate. That won't play well to moderates and independents when the general election rolls around.

I'm hoping that the fruitcake pastor endorsing McCain, who McCain has openly said he appreciates his endorsement, will come out with some more totally ludicrous and, frankly, obscene comments during the election race.
Just to really scupper McCain's ship and show him up for the dire kowtowing suck-up plaything of the far-right he's let himself become in his desperation and obsession to get into the White House.

Right, before I looked into McCain I was more acquainted with why I thought Barack Obama would lose and my thoughts came down to two areas.

He's the most liberal senator in the US, and that has tended to be a dirty word in America. If he was centrist then fine but he's really to the left and I just didn't see America voting for that - I say America but I mean the half that voted in '04. This will also tie in with the idea that he's not a genuine supporter of America, he's born overseas, Muslim step-father, mired in black racial politics of the 60's, God damn America etc., - if Iraq remains a strong issue, something he's said he will simply pull out within 6 months, if China surprises the world at an aggressive Olympics - is he the man to stand for America's safety?

This is a real touch-button issue despite what people might say about the truth in any of those claims, but they're claims that will be made, it's the emotional issues that win the day.

Second, sadly, is race. In the general I feel it's simply going to be an issue, mostly related to the first point, that his natural electorate is the black population, that's who he represents and they're angry, what will he do when he gets in power?

Again, it's one of those issues where people might sound reasonable until they put pen to paper, when they make that decision.

The third emotional issue, oddly, is the wives - I have no idea here but people do vote for the husband and wife representing them and they tend to fit in with the ideal of a strong manly man and a homely cookie baking wife.

Having said all that, McCain, as you say, seems increasingly, well, batshit insane, especially give the article you posted.

Sorry, Barringtonia, but when there's a Presidential campaign on, I'll sticky a thread. Till then, how the Republican candidate relates to either of the Democrat candidates goes here (unless it's a poll, in which case, try the poll thread).

Sorry, Barringtonia, but when there's a Presidential campaign on, I'll sticky a thread. Till then, how the Republican candidate relates to either of the Democrat candidates goes here (unless it's a poll, in which case, try the poll thread).

Fair enough, perhaps I should have asked in Moderation first.

*waits til Ardchoille's back is turned - shakes fist*

He's the most liberal senator in the US, and that has tended to be a dirty word in America. If he was centrist then fine but he's really to the left and I just didn't see America voting for that - I say America but I mean the half that voted in '04.

It really depends (and I unfortunately don't have a lot of faith in the American people on this) on whether or not they actually look into his policies. He may be listed as the most liberal senator in the US, but that is largely on social issues, rather than economic ones.

On economic issues, he does tend to be more centrist. That's something I think he'll need to make clear.

This will also tie in with the idea that he's not a genuine supporter of America, he's born overseas, Muslim step-father, mired in black racial politics of the 60's, God damn America etc., - if Iraq remains a strong issue, something he's said he will simply pull out within 6 months, if China surprises the world at an aggressive Olympics - is he the man to stand for America's safety?

Hawaii is overseas now?

And I would like to know how a young child was mired in politics as well. =)

*shakes head* It's amazing what people will believe.

Second, sadly, is race. In the general I feel it's simply going to be an issue, mostly related to the first point, that his natural electorate is the black population, that's who he represents and they're angry, what will he do when he gets in power?

Again, it's one of those issues where people might sound reasonable until they put pen to paper, when they make that decision.

He does have a record of representing all of the electorate, rather than just a segment. In fact, there were members of the black community that were very angry when he first got to the Senate and wouldn't lock into step with the black caucus.

The third emotional issue, oddly, is the wives - I have no idea here but people do vote for the husband and wife representing them and they tend to fit in with the ideal of a strong manly man and a homely cookie baking wife.

I don't think either wife really fits into that category, though, do they?

Having said all that, McCain, as you say, seems increasingly, well, batshit insane, especially give the article you posted.

Sad, isn't it? He really seemed like a viable candidate 8 years ago.

And I would like to know how a young child was mired in politics as well. =)

*shakes head* It's amazing what people will believe.

He was talking about Obama's father.

He was talking about Obama's father.

I see. The sentence structure was a little weird.

I didn't really get that impression from Dreams From My Father, though - that he was really involved in such things.

He was talking about Obama's father.

Thanks, actually I did mean Obama but above that paragraph I'd said 'despite what anyone says about the truth of these campaigns', meaning that these are things that people are saying about Obama regardless of whether they're the truth. The truth will out but not always in a timely manner.

Probably not expressed clearly though.

I have to correct myself on a point earlier. By checking previous elections I found out it's common for the presumptive nominee to have about 25% of voters vote against them in the remaining primaries. In fact, McCain got nearly that much after he withdrew when running against Bush in 2000. It's not particularly telling and I retract the claim as support for the argument against McCain.

I have to correct myself on a point earlier. By checking previous elections I found out it's common for the presumptive nominee to have about 25% of voters vote against them in the remaining primaries. In fact, McCain got nearly that much after he withdrew when running against Bush in 2000. It's not particularly telling and I retract the claim as support for the argument against McCain.

I think it's more interesting to note that, even before there was a presumptive nominee on the Republican side, it wasn't uncommon for the top Democrat in a state to get, not only more votes than the top Republican in that state, but maybe even more than the top 2 or 3.

It may not translate directly, but it seems fairly obvious that people in this country have been much more excited about the Democrats from the start of this election process. They just have to hold on to that excitement.

Who would collect the fair tax taxes?

No-one, they will just magically appear in the federal coffers...

That's what I thought. Because all I saw were people in Mexico getting screwed. To be honest, I haven't seen "free trade" benefit too many people who aren't absurdly rich. Perhaps you could set me straight on that?

Free trade benefits 3rd world countries by providing unskilled labor jobs as companies can set up factories there. the reason it takes flak is these companies tend to move their factories as cheaper labor markets open up or conditions in host countries lead to a raising of labor cost.
consumers benefit by having cheaper products available allowing for a higher quality of life.

Obama doesn't want to do away with free trade altogether. He wans to make it a requirement that free trade not create a competition for who can have worse conditions. Under the current system there is supposed to be equal ground, but it isn't enforced or really enforceable. Obama wants to correct this oversight, not abandon the idea altogether.

Obama doesn't want to do away with free trade altogether. He wans to make it a requirement that free trade not create a competition for who can have worse conditions. Under the current system there is supposed to be equal ground, but it isn't enforced or really enforceable. Obama wants to correct this oversight, not abandon the idea altogether.

He talks about Fair trade. Which is not free trade and is detrimental to industry.

He talks about Fair trade. Which is not free trade and is detrimental to industry.

Potentially, if we're talking about corporations. But what that sanitary view of the matter ignores is that the workers--more importantly, the PEOPLE--affected are just as, if not more, important. Personally, I'm far more than willing to take a slight hit to economic productivity if it means poverty would be seriously reduced. And the interesting thing is that there's a correlation between worker happiness and economic productivity. That is, the happier and healthier the worker, the more productive they are. So what actually suffers the most is the profits of CEOs, which hardly matter in the long run since they'd still have massive profits even under a fair trade system.

Obama doesn't want to do away with free trade altogether. He wans to make it a requirement that free trade not create a competition for who can have worse conditions. Under the current system there is supposed to be equal ground, but it isn't enforced or really enforceable. Obama wants to correct this oversight, not abandon the idea altogether.

I would think that Obama would be at great advantage in a competition for who can endure the worst conditions, since his people have...

Okay, I can't do it, its just, just...

He talks about Fair trade. Which is not free trade and is detrimental to industry.

True free trade would include slave labor, but I don't think we're going that direction.

If free trade principles are actually going to dominate the market, the necessary restrictions that we have to put in place (ie. safety rules for workers, living wages, etc.) have to be present across the market.

Fair trade is simply a matter of making sure that free trade is not undermined by some countries allowing dangerous working conditions and/or subsidizing their companies.

He talks about Fair trade. Which is not free trade and is detrimental to industry.Yes indeed. Only the foolish notion that what is good for industry is always good for people would induce someone to consider that a good thing.

He talks about Fair trade. Which is not free trade and is detrimental to industry.

It's detrimental to industry to put all workers on an equal playing field. Essentially without some effort to level that playing field, you have a competition to find the country that will allow you to most exploit the workers. Safety is expensive. Benefits are expensive. And when talking about unskilled labor and a country where unemployment is high and wages are very, very low, you'll always have people who are willing work there even at the risk to their person, even if that risk is a likelihood.

More importantly, underdeveloped countries automatically have an advantage over countries with a higher standard of living. I know there are a lot of teenagers out there who think that it's good for the rich to exploit the poor, but returning to a time when there were serfs is a bad thing for nearly every person of the world.

Might as well bump this thread, since the other one was locked.

This I found amusing. I suppose somebody has to be believing all those spam emails, because they keep getting forwarded...

Sen. Barack Obama says he is well-prepared to battle false smears and Republican attacks on his religion and patriotism, but various rumors have permeated so deeply into the electorate that they present a general election challenge for the likely Democratic presidential nominee.

From state to state, voters who support Mr. Obama's rivals regularly cite information gleaned from e-mails that falsely claim that he is a Muslim or that he doesn't respect the Pledge of Allegiance.

"His name scares me, his background scares me," said Terri Knowles, a grandmother from Tippecanoe County, Ind. She voted for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton last week and said that if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, she will sit out the November election.

This week in West Virginia, the rumor mill was working at full tilt, flagging the work the Obama campaign faces to set the record straight before November and highlighting the hurdles of urban-myth attacks on candidates.

Mr. Obama — who is Christian and says the Pledge of Allegiance regularly — sometimes shrugs off questions about the rumors with jokes, but he increasingly has been forced to quash them outright. He said the e-mails have been "systematically fed into the bloodstream" before a state holds an election, indicating that "it is not just a random sort of viral thing."

"This is a dirty trick that folks are playing on voters," he said.

Missouri voters were receiving the e-mails before the Feb. 5 primary. One contained the false rumor about Mr. Obama's faith and erroneously claimed he was not sworn into office on the Bible.

"Do you want this man leading our country?" the e-mail asks. "If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts."

In Pennsylvania, Republican Margaret Miller of Newmanstown told Mr. Obama in a diner that she "had to ask" about the rumor: "I'm going to ask you why you didn't salute the flag."

He explained, "We were singing the 'Star-Spangled Banner' and the flag wasn't in front of me, the flag was behind me." He added that he was looking at the singer and that he always honors the flag.

Earlier this month during a town hall at the fairgrounds in South Bend, Ind., a man asked the Democrat: "I've been reading on the Internet that you believe as an American we should not have to pledge allegiance to the flag. Is that true?"

Mr. Obama dismissed the e-mail as "a smear campaign that they've been running since the beginning of the campaign" and noted that he says the Pledge when presiding in the U.S. Senate.

"You can catch it on videotape," he said. "I've been saying the Pledge since I was 3 years old. Don't believe that stuff."

Before closing his 50-second answer to a question that voters have had in each state, he chuckled and added a new line: "If you ever get these letters from Nigeria saying that they've got a lot of money for you, don't give 'em your bank account number."Link to full article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080514/NATION/513535543/1028/ELECTION).

(Posted here and not in Clinton vs. Obama, because it's discussing his prospects for the general election.)

So, after California's supreme court ruling on gay marriage, an amendment to our constitution will be on the November ballot to once again make gay marriage illegal.

The rhetoric is that since McCain was already planning on competing this state, this issue might bring out enough of the faithful to turn California an hand the presidency to McCain.

Here's (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/san_francisco/2008/05/16/gay_marriage/) a Salon article on it that I'm too lazy to quote. I actually think that the effect will invert, that enough progressives will show up to defeat the amendment that it will buttress California.

What do you think? Is gay marriage going to decide 2008 as it has in the past? Is this the last hope for a struggling Republican party?

EDIT: I should say that there is a 'no telling' aspect-at one point the same ballot contained legalized medical marijuana and an end to affirmative action and they both passed, so I don't know you can infer one impending victory for another.

So I've been watching the McCain v Obama debate on the GI Bill.

It's amazing to me the final reasoning from the republicans on this. They are worried that if this passes that it will hurt retention.

What a stupid reason to deny good benefits. In a volunteer military, our goal shouldn't be to make it so soldiers' options are so limited they have no choice to join or stay in. Our vets should be among the most advantaged of our citizens not the least advantaged. I can't believe that the party, that claims the other party is unpatriotic and doesn't support the troops, is actually afraid that if they ACTUALLY support the troops, we'll have less of them.

Potentially, if we're talking about corporations. But what that sanitary view of the matter ignores is that the workers--more importantly, the PEOPLE--affected are just as, if not more, important. Personally, I'm far more than willing to take a slight hit to economic productivity if it means poverty would be seriously reduced. And the interesting thing is that there's a correlation between worker happiness and economic productivity. That is, the happier and healthier the worker, the more productive they are. So what actually suffers the most is the profits of CEOs, which hardly matter in the long run since they'd still have massive profits even under a fair trade system.

Ignorance is bliss.

So I've been watching the McCain v Obama debate on the GI Bill.

It's amazing to me the final reasoning from the republicans on this. They are worried that if this passes that it will hurt retention.

What a stupid reason to deny good benefits. In a volunteer military, our goal shouldn't be to make it so soldiers' options are so limited they have no choice to join or stay in. Our vets should be among the most advantaged of our citizens not the least advantaged. I can't believe that the party, that claims the other party is unpatriotic and doesn't support the troops, is actually afraid that if they ACTUALLY support the troops, we'll have less of them.

I'm intrigued to see how this will play in the traditionally strong republican base in the military. It's already dwindled drastically, but how do you vote for someone who essentially votes against your future and all but says we have to trap you there.

They have a recruitment problem that they aren't going to solve with retention. With college becoming more and more expensive and financial aid diminishing, what better carrot is there than education? I don't lionize military service, some think it's important, some think it's a way to get out of the situation they're in. Whatever it is, the government asks a great deal from them, throwing them this bone is the least they can do.

I'm intrigued to see how this will play in the traditionally strong republican base in the military. It's already dwindled drastically, but how do you vote for someone who essentially votes against your future and all but says we have to trap you there.

They have a recruitment problem that they aren't going to solve with retention. With college becoming more and more expensive and financial aid diminishing, what better carrot is there than education? I don't lionize military service, some think it's important, some think it's a way to get out of the situation they're in. Whatever it is, the government asks a great deal from them, throwing them this bone is the least they can do.

I just can't imagine that reasoning working. Come on. They basically said they don't want to make getting out too comfortable. As you say, they are hoping to trap soldiers in the military. Can you imagine how much damage it's going to do to the Republicans if they lose the military support?

I just can't imagine that reasoning working. Come on. They basically said they don't want to make getting out too comfortable. As you say, they are hoping to trap soldiers in the military. Can you imagine how much damage it's going to do to the Republicans if they lose the military support?

I think it very probably will happen this year. I spent the weekend with my buddy in the Navy who was at one point a Fox News watcher and voted Republican for as long as I've known him (and I've known him a long time) is going to vote Democrat this year. Anecdotal, so, you know, useless, but I can see it happening.

I think it very probably will happen this year. I spent the weekend with my buddy in the Navy who was at one point a Fox News watcher and voted Republican for as long as I've known him (and I've known him a long time) is going to vote Democrat this year. Anecdotal, so, you know, useless, but I can see it happening.

I'm former military. My brother is former military. My father is former military. Most of my employees are former military. Many of the people I work with are former military. All of them are voting democrat this year. Still anecdotal, but I honestly don't know any military people who still support Republicans.

I think it very probably will happen this year. I spent the weekend with my buddy in the Navy who was at one point a Fox News watcher and voted Republican for as long as I've known him (and I've known him a long time) is going to vote Democrat this year. Anecdotal, so, you know, useless, but I can see it happening.

Even prior to the primaries, Obama had more contributions from military members than McCain, which was surprising on so many levels.

I haven't seen any updated numbers on this, but I really don't know why it would have changed.

Even prior to the primaries, Obama had more contributions from military members than McCain, which was surprising on so many levels.

I haven't seen any updated numbers on this, but I really don't know why it would have changed.

Obama is on the congressional board for veterans affairs and co-sponsored an expansion of the GI bill granting broadly increased benefits for veterans. McCain is on record against that bill.

Obama is on the congressional board for veterans affairs and co-sponsored an expansion of the GI bill granting broadly increased benefits for veterans. McCain is on record against that bill.

Indeed. Because it doesn't make you stay in the military longer to get the good benefits.

People have asked me what would make me no longer support Obama. I can tell you this is one of those issues that are a hot button for me. If Obama was saying that we shouldn't give certain benefits to vets because it will hurt retention, I'd be turned off. For me, asking men and women to buy that I can and will lead them in the best interest of our country, I can't undermine that by selfishly denying them benefits.

I'm sure there are those who served under me who have plenty of negative things to say about me, but I assure you none of them had any doubt about my committment to their well-being. Within the bounds of our mission, I would have done anything to ensure they were as protected and as prepared as humanly possible. I fought to ensure they were educated and trained.

I think it's entirely fair to expect the same of not just our next CiC, but every CiC.

I think the John McCain who stayed in a torture camp in order to not leave his mean behind would kick the living shit out of the John McCain who opposed that bill for those reasons. And I'd be holding his arms.

So I've been watching the McCain v Obama debate on the GI Bill.

It's amazing to me the final reasoning from the republicans on this. They are worried that if this passes that it will hurt retention.

What a stupid reason to deny good benefits. In a volunteer military, our goal shouldn't be to make it so soldiers' options are so limited they have no choice to join or stay in. Our vets should be among the most advantaged of our citizens not the least advantaged. I can't believe that the party, that claims the other party is unpatriotic and doesn't support the troops, is actually afraid that if they ACTUALLY support the troops, we'll have less of them.
McCain has really screwed the pooch on this issue. People don't generally join because of benefits promised under a GI Bill, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be rewarded for their service. What else does a single term enlistee get, but GI Bill benefits? Maybe training that prepares them for a civilian job, but there aren't all that many civilian equivalents for infantry soldier...

Nope, McCain can't win like this. Although, his bill that offers benefits on a sliding scale should get more attention.

McCain has really screwed the pooch on this issue. People don't generally join because of benefits promised under a GI Bill, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be rewarded for their service. What else does a single term enlistee get, but GI Bill benefits? Maybe training that prepares them for a civilian job, but there aren't all that many civilian equivalents for infantry soldier...

Nope, McCain can't win like this. Although, his bill that offers benefits on a sliding scale should get more attention.

Oh, I appreciate some of what he's trying to do. I think that benefits should increase with time. I also happen to think benefits should increase after hazardous duty, but that's just me. But the military has long been seen as of value to our young people in teaching them leadership and honor and by helping them choose their own way of rising up out of poverty and hardship. It's well-known that many, many people are recruited with the promise of college. In two states, that I know of, tuition is free to public colleges (IL and TX).

Giving our young people access to higher education is, in itself, a benefit. However, that we give such a benefit to all of our veterans should be the very least we can do.

I'm very disappointed in the world where yellow ribbons and blindly allowing our CiC to march to war unprepared passes for patriotism and giving reasonable benefits to veterans does not.

And I'd be holding his arms.

I don't think you can, at least not above a certain height, without breaking them. Johnny lost that ability after torture. Then went on to support it.

I don't think you can, at least not above a certain height, without breaking them. Johnny lost that ability after torture. Then went on to support it.

The torture thing really gets me too. I can't believe that this is the same person. Yeah, I wish through some twist of time the young John McCain would meet this guy. I'm telling you, it would be such a beating.

How do they not realize that we openly declare that torture is acceptable that it justifies it being used against us? I promise you there are Marines being tortured right now and our actions have made that equally morally just to the actions of the US.

The torture thing really gets me too. I can't believe that this is the same person. Yeah, I wish through some twist of time the young John McCain would meet this guy. I'm telling you, it would be such a beating.

How do they not realize that we openly declare that torture is acceptable that it justifies it being used against us? I promise you there are Marines being tortured right now and our actions have made that equally morally just to the actions of the US.

He is the very model of a modern major-general...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-humes30-2008may30,0,4850795.story

I had to walk around after reading this. It is seriously upsetting. For full disclosure, I was a big McCain supporter 8 years ago. I used to love McCain. I think he is a hero by any standard and when he passes away my flag will be at half mast. I am moved by his service to this country and to his men.

I'm not sure what I would do if I met him today. Part of me would want to thank him for his service as a veteran and a politician. Part of me would want to hit him for his betrayal as a person in both positions. I don't know how to rectify his positions as a rational human being. I think it's shameful.

McCain argues that making the education benefits too generous will hurt retention, as enlistees will leave for college after three years rather than reenlist.

...

From 2004 to 2006, the Disabled Veterans of America gave him annual scores ranging from 50% to the most recent 20% when it comes to supporting the group's legislative priorities. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave him a grade of "D" in its most recent analysis of voting records. The American Legion says he is dead wrong on the GI Bill, as does the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

...

"I take a back seat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans."

So let's take McCain up on his invitation. Here is how he has stood on recent legislation supported by major veterans organizations:



* On Webb's GI Bill, he expressed opposition, and he was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22.

* Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.

* On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 -- to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes -- he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.

* In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.

* In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care.

* In March 2004, he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care, also funded by closing tax loopholes.

I hope every veteran sends a clear message to the GOP that we expect that the military threat to Americans to be more than an excuse to pass invasive legislation and put our men and women in harm's way. Support our troops means exactly that. Republicans, stop talking about it and start forcing your leadership to do it.

Ignorance is bliss.

Please clarify this statement. Were you calling me ignorant?

I talked someone out of voting for McCain tonight. Heh. Just about 40 million more.

McCain's campaign about him misspeaking an actual political subject, the level of troops in Iraq.

“Take the worst possibility here which is that Senator McCain misspoke and that because of the specific words used what he said was not entirely accurate. So what? What does amount to?” asked Sen. Jon Kyl, a McCain surrogate.

Nothing wrong with misspeaking.

The RNC about Obama misspeaking about his family history.

"Obama's frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief," Conant said this afternoon.

So McCain can't keep the sides straight in Iraq and lies... ahem, misspeaks about the troop levels and it's no big deal, but Obama says his uncle liberated Auschwitz instead of Buchewald and he's not fit to be President.

Yeah, that's totally rational.

McCain's campaign about him misspeaking an actual political subject, the level of troops in Iraq.

“Take the worst possibility here which is that Senator McCain misspoke and that because of the specific words used what he said was not entirely accurate. So what? What does amount to?” asked Sen. Jon Kyl, a McCain surrogate.

Nothing wrong with misspeaking.

The RNC about Obama misspeaking about his family history.

"Obama's frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief," Conant said this afternoon.

So McCain can't keep the sides straight in Iraq and lies... ahem, misspeaks about the troop levels and it's no big deal, but Obama says his uncle liberated Auschwitz instead of Buchewald and he's not fit to be President.

Yeah, that's totally rational.

Every time I start to think, "Man, what are we going to do after this primary is over, it's going to be sooo boring..." something like this happens and I get a little chuckle going on...

Nope, McCain can't win like this. Although, his bill that offers benefits on a sliding scale should get more attention.

It seemed attractive to me at first, but the more I think about it, the more I question whether or not McCain's proposal has merit. After all, won't the promise of full-paid tuition attract more people, off-setting the losses incurred from those who serve their three years and leave? I've heard estimates say that the number of people that Webb's measure would attract held up against those who would leave after three years would keep troop levels about even. (John Stewart used figures of 16% lost and 16% gained, respectively.)

Still, I would suggest periodic reviews of how the new GI Bill is affecting troop levels to see if it is causing us to lose more troops than we gain. If this is the case, then McCain's measure would suffice. For now, however, it's a great way to make McCain and the GOP in general look hypocritical with their "Support our Troops" rhetoric.

Every time I start to think, "Man, what are we going to do after this primary is over, it's going to be sooo boring..." something like this happens and I get a little chuckle going on...

Eh, if it's just stuff like that, it's gonna get boring pretty quickly, especially around here, where it seems no one is really bothering to argue for McCain.

Eh, if it's just stuff like that, it's gonna get boring pretty quickly, especially around here, where it seems no one is really bothering to argue for McCain.

Give it time. I don't know if you remember, but we didn't get Eutrusca until Kerry was the candidate. Once the general gets underway, the McCain people will start getting things cooking. Already we have Deep Kimchi back.

I thought this thread was #1? Now we have another #1 and no #2.