OBAMA MILITARY STORY HAS A HUGE HOLE IN IT!

Northside Storm · Sep 14, 2008

Remind me, WTH is this in all caps? From the few posts I skimmed through, with all the exclams, you'd have thought that Obama had murdered someone.

With that said, in the initiative of answering WHY people would vote for Obama even if he has a wacky pastor/no military service and in the intrest of trying to get some people to quiet down and act like rational people instead of bolding, ad hominum idiots, I present to you the following.

ECONOMY

From the January 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

[begin video clip]

RUSSERT: Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgement, you're not well-versed on?

McCAIN: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics.

RUSSERT: I will show you where I got the quote from. I got it from John McCain, and here it is: "McCain is refreshingly blunt when he tells me, quote, 'I'm going to be honest. I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' " Wall Street Journal, November 26th, 2005. You repeated it to The Boston Globe in December of '07. You said it.
Click to expand...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802030007

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the U.S. can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without similar reductions in the federal budget.

Greenspan, a lifelong Republican and longtime friend of McCain, said on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt'' that ``I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.''

McCain has said he would balance the cost of most of his tax cuts with budget reductions, while providing few details beyond eliminating earmarks and other pork-barrel spending, which have totaled about $171 billion since 2001.
Click to expand...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a.BrvyBtV8CM&refer=home

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to promise on Monday that he will balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security, his advisers told Politico.

On April 15, McCain backed off a February pledge to balance the budget in his first term when asked about it by Michael Cooper of The New York Times, who reported that McCain said “at a news conference … that ‘economic conditions are reversed’ and that he would have a balanced budget within eight years.”

McCain advisers admit that the document is a repackaging of previous policies, without dramatic new initiatives. Some Democratic officials had thought McCain might try to make a splash by proposing a bold middle-class tax cut.

Jason Furman, Obama's economic policy director, called McCain's pledge “preposterous." Furman pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office now estimates a 2013 deficit of $443 billion, assuming the Bush tax cuts are extended. And he estimated that McCain would have to cut discretionary spending—including defense—by roughly one-third to bring the budget into the black by then.

"McCain would have to pay for all of his new tax cuts and other proposals and then, on top of that, cut an additional $443 billion from the budget—which is 81 percent of Medicare spending or 78 percent of all discretionary spending outside of defense," Furman said.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html

When it comes to economic policy, Barack Obama's standard campaign crack that a John McCain Administration would amount to a third term of George W. Bush contains an awful lot of truth. Yes, McCain is a different man, with a different history, who will face a different set of challenges and opportunities than Bush has. But look through McCain's campaign pledges on the economy, and for the most part they really do amount to a continuation of two key policy priorities of the Bush Administration: cutting taxes and moving more economic decisions (and responsibilities) into the hands of individuals.
Click to expand...

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1812964,00.html

Clearly, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, "Unequal Democracy," by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton University. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation's economy. Most economists will tell you that U.S. Federal Reserve Board policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels's work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America's poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family's income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don't you like?
Click to expand...

Is history siding with Obama's economic plan?
By Alan S. Blinder (Professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/31/business/31view.php?page=2

One of the main ambitions for this site is to correct misperceptions rooted in McCain and Palin's false statements about Obama's tax plan. Despite the Republicans' best attempts to confuse you, here are three key facts:

* 95% of working families would have a tax cut under Obama's proposals.
* 100 million Americans would have NO tax cut under McCain's proposals.
* Most Americans would have a larger tax cut under Obama than under McCain.

At left is a link to a tax calculator site. It allows you to calculate the rough impact of each of the candidate's tax proposals on your tax bill, given your income, number of dependents, and filing status.

I decided today to change the ObamaTaxCut.com link to this site rather than this one. The new one is more straightforward and I think easier for people to interpret. The numbers for both sites come straight out of three tables produced by the Tax Policy Center as part of their comprehensive analysis of the candidates' proposals. The tables are this one for elderly families, this one for married couples, and this one for singles and people filing as head of household.
Click to expand...

Links are at http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-tax-policy-and-mccain-tax-policy.html

Tax Calculator is at
http://alchemytoday.com/willobamaraisemytaxes.html

"I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?" --John McCain after being asked by Rev. Rick Warren to define "rich," Lake Forest, California, Aug. 16, 2008
Click to expand...

FOREIGN POLICY

"We have a lot of work to do. It's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border." --John McCain referring to a border that does not exist, ABC News interview, July 21, 2008
Click to expand...

"I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war," John McCain said during a Rochester, N.H., town meeting on July 22. "It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." It was a remarkable statement, as intemperate a personal attack as I've ever heard a major-party candidate make in a presidential campaign, the sort of thing that no potential President of the United States should ever be caught saying. (A prudent candidate has aides sling that sort of mud.) It was also inevitable.

You could see McCain's frustration building as Barack Obama traipsed elegantly through the Middle East while the pillars of McCain's bellicose regional policy crumbled in his wake. It wasn't only that the Iraqi government seemed to take Obama's side in the debate over when U.S. forces should leave (sooner rather than later). McCain was being undermined in Washington as well, by his old pal George W. Bush, who seemed to take Obama's side in the debate about whether to talk to Iran. Bush sent a ranking U.S. diplomat to negotiate with the Iranians on nuclear issues — and also let it be known that a U.S. Interests Section could soon be established in Tehran, the first U.S. diplomatic presence on Iranian soil since the 1979 hostage crisis.

In the end, both Obama and McCain seemed to have a piece of the truth about Iraq, but Obama's truth was larger and more strategic. Obama had been right about the war in the first place. It was a disastrous idea, a phenomenal waste of lives and American credibility that diverted focus from our real enemy, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Obama was right about the war now: the progress in Iraq was enabling a quicker withdrawal — a plan already hinted at by Bush. And Obama was right about the future: the Iraqis don't want long-term U.S. bases on their territory, a McCain keystone and the source of his infamous comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years. McCain's piece of the truth was tactical: he was right about the surge and right about the brilliance of David Petraeus' battle plan, which had helped quiet down Iraq. McCain was justifiably infuriated that Obama wouldn't acknowledge that success — indeed, Obama seemed to understand that he was pushing McCain's buttons, hoping perhaps to elicit McCain's Vesuvian temper, and in Rochester the eruption occurred.

McCain's greatest claim to the presidency — his overseas expertise — now seems squandered. He has appeared brittle and inflexible, slow to adapt to changes on the ground, slow to grasp the full implications not only of the improving situation in Iraq but also of the worsening situation in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan. Some will say this behavior raises questions about his age. I'll leave those to gerontologists. A more obvious explanation is that McCain has straitjacketed himself in an ideology focused more on enemies (real and imagined) than on opportunities. "It is impossible to ignore the many striking parallels between [McCain] and the so-called neoconservatives (many of whom are vocal and visible supporters of his candidacy)," writes the Democratic diplomat Richard Holbrooke in a forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs. "I don't know if John has become a neocon," says a longtime friend of the Senator's, "but he sure has surrounded himself with them."
Click to expand...

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1826064,00.html

A major theme of John McCain's campaign is that he has far more experience in foreign affairs than does Barack Obama. McCain has now escalated his attacks by targeting Obama's judgment as well — especially the latter's pessimism about the effectiveness of the surge in Iraq.

There is little doubt about McCain's lengthier foreign policy experience. But it is not at all apparent that his judgment is superior to Obama's. Indeed, the record indicates that McCain's own judgment is alarmingly bad.

Even if one concedes that Obama was excessively negative about the surge's prospects for success (and the jury may be out on that point for months or even years to come), McCain's own prognostications on Iraq have repeatedly been off the mark. He was not prescient about the course of the war: As senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee prior to the invasion, McCain predicted Iraq would be a quick and easy victory, and even told MSNBC he had "no doubt" U.S. troops "will be welcomed as liberators."

There have been recent episodes in which McCain has missed even the most basic facts about foreign policy. During a recent CNN interview, McCain said the surge of U.S. forces, which began in the spring of 2007, led to the Sunni Awakening — which started in early autumn of 2006, months before the surge was even announced.

Despite McCain's multiple trips to Iraq, he still manages to mangle facts on the ground. As a member of a senatorial delegation visiting Iraq this year, he erroneously accused Iran of aiding al Qaeda and suffered the embarrassment of an on-camera correction by his friend and fellow hawk, Sen. Joe Lieberman, that Tehran was aiding "Shiite extremists," not the Sunni zealots of al Qaeda. Yet, during a Senate hearing a few weeks later, McCain committed a similar gaffe. He asked Gen. David Petraeus to confirm that al Qaeda was far more than "an obscure sect of the Shiites," and then, apparently catching himself, added, "or Sunnis or anybody else."

McCain apparently is not even certain about Iraq's geographic location. He recently referred to a nonexistent "Iraq-Pakistan border." (The two countries are separated by more than 800 miles of Iranian territory.)

Far worse than such embarrassing factual errors, though, have been his shockingly careless — and at times tasteless and insensitive — off-the-cuff comments on various topics. His flip statement about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years is probably the least serious verbal blunder in an ever-mounting total. Leaving aside the key point that fractious Iraq is nothing like stable South Korea (McCain's model for an extended troop presence), his comment was still damaging because it ignored the probable reaction in the Muslim world. Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups repeatedly charge that the U.S. is determined to undermine their civilization and act as an imperial hegemon in their region. McCain's "100 years in Iraq" banner gives those allegations credibility and puts moderate Muslims on the defensive.

But that comment was well-thought-out compared to some others. McCain's "joke" at an April 2007 campaign stop, in which he sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of a Beach Boys song, was beyond tasteless. This month, he again offended basic sensibilities when he joked that despite the imposition of economic sanctions, America's unimpeded sale of cigarettes to Iran might be a good thing because "maybe that's a way of killing 'em."

At best, the senator has a warped sense of humor. But such gaffes also betray a disturbing lack of judgment.

Foreign policy is serious business, and America needs a president who carefully considers his comments rather than shoots from the hip. The world is always watching and listening, and such thoughtless remarks can do tremendous damage to America's already tattered reputation.

McCain's record shows clearly that he is a verbal loose cannon, and would be a clear and present danger in the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9595

The rap on Barack Obama, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been that he is a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America's enemies. John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world's dangers. Even President Bush stepped into the fray earlier this year to condemn the Illinois senator's willingness to meet with tyrants as naive. Some commentators have acted as if Obama, touring the Middle East and Europe this week on his first trip abroad since effectively wrapping up the nomination, is in for a rude awakening.

These critiques, however, are off the mark. Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.

No candidate for the presidency ever claims to have a doctrinal world view. Richard Nixon never said he loved realpolitik. Jimmy Carter never claimed to be a Wilsonian. There's no advantage to getting pigeonholed, and most politicians and even policy folk are clever enough to argue that they want to combine the best of all traditions. So John McCain says he's a "realistic idealist." Former national-security adviser Anthony Lake, who now counsels Obama, calls himself a "pragmatic neo-Wilsonian." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describes herself as an "American realist."

Against that backdrop, Obama has been strikingly honest about his inclinations and inspirations. True, he begins by praising Harry Truman's administration, which in the foreign-policy world is a little like saying you admire George Washington. (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and John McCain have all cited Truman as a model.) But then Obama takes an unusual step, for a Democrat, and praises the administration of George H.W. Bush, one that is often seen as the most hardheaded or coldblooded (depending on your point of view) in recent memory. Obama has done this more than once, most recently in a conversation with me last week on CNN. And he is explicit about what he means. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign-policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush," he told The New York Times's David Brooks in May.

Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.

Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—"dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want." This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.

Obama talks admiringly of men like Dean Acheson, George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr, all of whom were imbued with a sense of the limits of idealism and American power to transform the world. "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative," wrote Larissa MacFarquhar in her profile of him for The New Yorker. "There are moments when he sounds almost Burkean. He distrusts abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections. It's not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good."

As important as what Obama says is what he passes up -- a series of obvious cheap shots against Bush. He could bash him for coddling China's dictatorship, urge him to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics or criticize his inaction in Darfur. In fact, Obama has been circumspect on all these issues, neither grandstanding nor overpromising. (This is, alas, not true on trade policy, where he has done both.)

Perhaps the most telling area where Obama has stuck to a focused conception of U.S. national interests is Iraq. Despite the progress in Iraq, despite the possibility of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, Obama's position is steely -- Iraq is a distraction, and the sooner America can reduce its exposure there, the better. I actually wish he were somewhat more sympathetic to the notion that a democratic Iraq would play a positive role in the struggle against Islamic extremism. But his view is certainly focused on America's core security interests and is recognizably realist. Walter Lippmann and George Kennan made similar arguments about Vietnam from the mid-1960s onward.

Ironically, the Republicans now seem to be the foreign-policy idealists, labeling countries as either good or evil, refusing to deal with nasty regimes, fixating on spreading democracy throughout the world and refusing to think in more historical and complex ways. "I don't do nuance," George W. Bush told many visitors to the White House in the years after 9/11. John McCain has had his differences with Bush, but not on this broad thrust of policy. Indeed it is McCain, the Republican, who has put forward some fanciful plans, arguing that America should establish a "League of Democracies," expel Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and exclude China from both groups as well.

Obama's response to McCain's proposals on Russia and China could have been drafted by Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft. We need to cooperate with both countries in order to solve significant global problems, he told me last week, citing nuclear-proliferation issues with Russia and economic ones with China. The distinction between Obama and McCain on this point is important. The single largest strategic challenge facing the United States in the decades ahead is to draw in the world's new rising powers and make them stakeholders in the global economic and political order. Russia and China will be the hardest because they are large and have different political systems and ideological approaches to the world. Yet the benefits of having them inside the tent are obvious. Without some degree of great-power cooperation, global peace and stability becomes a far more fragile prospect.

Obama and McCain are obviously mixtures of both realism and idealism. American statesmen have always sought to combine the two in some fashion, and they are right to do so. A foreign policy that is impractical will fail and one that lacks ideals is unworthy of the United States. But the balance that each leader establishes is always different, and my main point is that Obama seems -- unusually for a modern-day Democrat -- highly respectful of the realist tradition. And McCain, to an extent unusual for a traditional Republican, sees the world in moralistic terms.

In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology -- temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.
Click to expand...

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...ria/2008/07/obama_foreign_policy_realist.html

Mmhmm.

Invisible Fan · Sep 14, 2008

^I hope that was a copypasta from another source because it seems like a wasted effort undeserving for a thread like this.

Northside Storm · Sep 14, 2008

Invisible Fan said:

^I hope that was a copypasta from another source because it seems like a wasted effort undeserving for a thread like this.
Click to expand...

Most of it was. I still spent some effort getting everything together, but it looks more worked-on then it actually is...

That said, I hope it's kinda intresting. I doubt too many people will read thorugh it, but it's some of the substance this forum lacks sometimes. And I figure if people start questioning AGAIN why we should vote for Obama, how he is style over substance etc...well that post will be a good reference for another retort.

rocketsjudoka · Sep 14, 2008

SWTsig said:

it's a jab at his democrats "living in fear" campaign... you know "irony", right?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that applies to comparing Obama to a fictionalized version of Xerxes. It seems more to me like a jab at Obama supporters as mindless followers of an egomaniacal tyrant. Then again I'm not really sure why Roxran is stuck on that analogy.

FranchiseBlade · Sep 14, 2008

Northside Storm said:

Remind me, WTH is this in all caps? From the few posts I skimmed through, with all the exclams, you'd have thought that Obama had murdered someone.

With that said, in the initiative of answering WHY people would vote for Obama even if he has a wacky pastor/no military service and in the intrest of trying to get some people to quiet down and act like rational people instead of bolding, ad hominum idiots, I present to you the following.

ECONOMY

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802030007

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a.BrvyBtV8CM&refer=home

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1812964,00.html

Is history siding with Obama's economic plan?
By Alan S. Blinder (Professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/31/business/31view.php?page=2

Links are at http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-tax-policy-and-mccain-tax-policy.html

Tax Calculator is at
http://alchemytoday.com/willobamaraisemytaxes.html

FOREIGN POLICY

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1826064,00.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9595

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...ria/2008/07/obama_foreign_policy_realist.html

Mmhmm.
Click to expand...

Absolutely great post. Things like this put the lie to Obama being the one that's all style and no substance.

Just like McCain's inability grasp basic foreign policy points puts the lie to him being the one that's strong on foreign policy.

IROC it · Sep 14, 2008

Rashmon said:

Funny. You misused "principal." I'm compelled to respond.

Definitions of principal:

* chief(a): most important element; "the chief aim of living"; "the main doors were of solid glass"; "the principal rivers of America"; "the principal example"; "policemen were primary targets"; "the master bedroom"; "a master switch"
Click to expand...

The chief element of my argument was my principal element.

IROC it · Sep 14, 2008

rocketsjudoka said:

When Roxran is talking about the Persian God-King I don't think he is talkign about 9/11 but is referring to Xerxes from 300
Click to expand...

I believe it's a misinformed assimilation to the Prince of Persia, another name or phrase used to describe the Antichrist. The Prince of Persia is a great deceiver... that's the only comparison anyone could make to any current politician in the US.

It is a vague reference, but I got it right off.

I don't think it's any more applicable to any politician though, many can make claims that all of them have, in nicest terms, have slanted the truth from time to time.

bobmarley · Sep 14, 2008

Quote:
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the U.S. can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without similar reductions in the federal budget.

Greenspan, a lifelong Republican and longtime friend of McCain, said on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt'' that ``I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.''

McCain has said he would balance the cost of most of his tax cuts with budget reductions, while providing few details beyond eliminating earmarks and other pork-barrel spending, which have totaled about $171 billion since 2001.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...V8CM&refer=home

If you read other sources they paint another picture entirely. Some seem to not include this tidbit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080914/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_5

McCain campaign officials dispute the $3.3 trillion figure, saying it assumes eliminating 2003 tax cuts made by the Bush administration and then cutting from that higher level. They say McCain is proposing tax cuts worth $600 billion from current levels.

"John McCain opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2003, because they didn't include the necessary spending controls. Sen. McCain's proposed job-growing tax cuts are modest in comparison to his plans to slow the exploding growth of federal expenditures — meaning that contrary to Chairman Greenspan's assertions, this relief isn't proposed on borrowed money," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

While McCain opposed the 2003 cuts and previous Bush administration tax cuts from 2001, he now says he would leave them intact. Obama has said he would repeal Bush tax cuts benefiting families making over $250,000 annually to pay for programs and provide middle-tax class relief.

______________________________________________________
My two cents being exactly what they are, two cents. I think both sides do too much pandering. I am a an undecided voter and both sides make me want to throw up at times. The only reason I decided to post this reply was I had read the article in question before I read it here in this forum and I take exception. Both sides do a great measure of distortion when it comes to actualities. And as a follower of Christ I would much rather see the eventual leader of this country and his followers do something I am called to do, " Walk in Truth and Love."

bucket · Sep 15, 2008

bobmarley said:

Quote:
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the U.S. can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without similar reductions in the federal budget.

Greenspan, a lifelong Republican and longtime friend of McCain, said on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital With Al Hunt'' that ``I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.''

McCain has said he would balance the cost of most of his tax cuts with budget reductions, while providing few details beyond eliminating earmarks and other pork-barrel spending, which have totaled about $171 billion since 2001.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...V8CM&refer=home

If you read other sources they paint another picture entirely. Some seem to not include this tidbit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080914/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_5

McCain campaign officials dispute the $3.3 trillion figure, saying it assumes eliminating 2003 tax cuts made by the Bush administration and then cutting from that higher level. They say McCain is proposing tax cuts worth $600 billion from current levels.

"John McCain opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2003, because they didn't include the necessary spending controls. Sen. McCain's proposed job-growing tax cuts are modest in comparison to his plans to slow the exploding growth of federal expenditures — meaning that contrary to Chairman Greenspan's assertions, this relief isn't proposed on borrowed money," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

While McCain opposed the 2003 cuts and previous Bush administration tax cuts from 2001, he now says he would leave them intact. Obama has said he would repeal Bush tax cuts benefiting families making over $250,000 annually to pay for programs and provide middle-tax class relief.

______________________________________________________
My two cents being exactly what they are, two cents. I think both sides do too much pandering. I am a an undecided voter and both sides make me want to throw up at times. The only reason I decided to post this reply was I had read the article in question before I read it here in this forum and I take exception. Both sides do a great measure of distortion when it comes to actualities. And as a follower of Christ I would much rather see the eventual leader of this country and his followers do something I am called to do, " Walk in Truth and Love."
Click to expand...

^I think this was posted in the wrong thread. At any rate, I'll take independent analysis over McCain campaign spin every day, especially since McCain seems completely incapable of telling the truth lately.

SWTsig · Sep 15, 2008

i find it telling that there isn't one post by any of the repubs in this thread that debates anything regarding the issues.

Forums

OBAMA MILITARY STORY HAS A HUGE HOLE IN IT!

Northside Storm Member

Invisible Fan Member

Northside Storm Member

rocketsjudoka Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

IROC it Member

IROC it Member

bobmarley Member

bucket Member

SWTsig Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

OBAMA MILITARY STORY HAS A HUGE HOLE IN IT!

Northside Storm Member

Invisible Fan Member

Northside Storm Member

rocketsjudoka Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

IROC it Member

IROC it Member

bobmarley Member

bucket Member

SWTsig Member

Share This Page

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member