WSJ: McCainonomics

Because he's got nothing to support his argument. It is factually inaccurate. The fact is that basso has become like T_J and texx, just a caricature. Which is too bad, because there are plenty of intelligent conservatives to debate with, who can back up their points with articulable facts, but he doesn't appear to be one of them.

 

since you refuse to answer i'll go ahead and answer for you

basso-I didn't actually know whether or not Obama has reached across the aisle, I just read something saying he's the most liberal in the Senate so I assumed he doesn't work with Republicans and I heard criticism of him being all fluff and no substance so I assumed it was just all talk. now that i've been proven wrong, as usual, I will apologize.

 

To quote the thread starter

You asked a question about one bill. You didn't say what you thought about him working with the GOP on a number of different legislative efforts, and even if the readers of this thread were to presume that by asking the question you don't feel he was bipartisan on that one issue alone, are you really going to stick with your assertion that he's all talk when it comes to acting in a bipartisan manner despite having provided with several specific examples that would seem to indicate the contrary?

 

It's episodes like this that have earned basso the title of most intellectually dishonest poster on this board.

 

Sorry, but you're not Socrates trying to arrive at a universal truth.

You're a guy who made an assertion on the internet and when asked to explain your basis for the assertion, you folded like Rush Limbaugh's lawn chair.

And by the way, when you use the totally superfluous word "actually" in response to getting called out, it is a big tell.

 

Don't worry, he is majorly griping with the fact our extreme hawkish foreign policy is likely to dramatically shift within a year. Maybe once he deals with this probable reality he will come back into the fold of respectable debater/sincere contributor. I wouldn't hold my breath though—he may have dug himself in too deep.

 

Quoted for effect.

 

Except he never apologizes. He just blithely goes on to another subject as if the previous mistake never happened.

 

Has basso entered the pretend it never happened phase with this thread? I hope not because I would like to hear his thoughts.

It is odd that he accused me of stating vague non-specific statements, then also claims that he answered the question about Obama acting in a partisan manner by asking a question about a bill, that had nothing to do with Obama, while ignoring 6 different bills that had very much to do with Obama and all of them were bi-partisan.

 

It's called He Lost the Argument. Do you really need him to formally concede the point?

 

No I don't care. I was just curious what gave him the idea that Obama was a partisan politician in practice. I guess if he didn't have any real examples to back that up, then yeah I'd like to hear that from him. But apparently he hasn't been saying that.

 

Back on topic, I think it'd be interesting to see how McCain would act in a Democratic-led Congress. Would he alienate his hard won Republican constituency (which is crucial to a victory) and revert to his "maverick" Senate voting ways? Or would he relish partisanship with Iraqi policy setting the tone for the rest of his admin?

Whoever inherits the Presidency will face a rough first couple of years if the '08 recession doesn't recede. In a sense, I would suspect a McCain presidency to be just as ambitious as Obama's in getting different constituencies to work together. He would effectively change the face of the Republican status quo, and leave several groups within the party disgruntled. This is assuming that he won't change his views that originally made him a notable candidate to the public.

 

Wow, I see your point basso and now I will vote for John McCain.

 

My favorite part of this article is this little snippet:


On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.

 

Much better response. I think Obama was right on all of the issues mentioned there. I also thought it was funny that this "news" report called Obama's amendments "poison pills" and blamed those for bringing down the bill. That's pretty humorous, and certainly doesn't rank high in journalism standards, but it is Fox News.

Obama was right that the Gang of 14 was helping out some unfit judges, and I think he did the right thing. I'm glad that in addition to working in a bipartisan measure he stuck by and did the right thing when his principles demanded it.

I especially love that he stood up for the civil rights of Americans by voting against the wiretapping bill which they mentioned in the piece as showing he wasn't bipartisan.

 

I'll have to pay $2100 more annually as a father of 2 if the "Bush" tax cuts don't stay around.


I needed, and need them.

Maybe you are better off, or think I'm "the rich" - but I am definitely in favor of being taxed less and having less gubmint.

 

All you're doing is leaving those taxes to be paid by your kids. Is that better?

 

You don't scare me, doomsday Obamist.


And no.. not if they are made law.


McCain '08!


(Will the Dem's ever get a platform that appeals to the real middle class?