Why McCain would be a mediocre president

[Len_A]

All you need do to find out if all of this stuff works is LOOK what are pays the highest % in local taxes. Guess who it is, lololololol. CHICAGO ILL.

 

For those BRILLIANT prognosticators who want to point at how this and that doesn't work, lets look at YOUR solution. CHICAGO ILLINOIS!!!!!!

 

Tell everyone how the school kids are doing!!!!

 

Tell everyone how small crime is!!!!

 

Tell everyone how businesses are flocking to the city if they don't have taxbreaks, or not fleeing when they don't have them either.

 

What political party runs Chicago, tell us!!!! How well is the plan working? Is it anywhere near better than say, Tucson Arizona? How about Kansas City? What about Oklahoma City?

 

Chicago is one of the most CORRUPT citys in America, and yet the tried and true Democrats run it, lolol.

 

It is virtually laughable!!!!! Just look at the large citys that have instituted more taxes and control under Dems leadership, and tell all of us what you see. Here, let me help you with the correct words-------->ABJECT FAILURE!!!! And now, how dumb are we to let them DARE try and even debate the issue while holding a straight face?

 

Tell all of us what Chicagos direct cash shortfall is, and what % of total income that shows?!?!?! Los Angeles? New York? These are microcosims of YOUR BRILLIANT ideas in action. And guess what!!!!! They DO NOT FUND A MILITARY, so how can they be broke and in deficit, lololol!!!!!

 

It is not that I am here to proclaim that republican ideas are brilliant, but rather that the alternative is a mirror of big citys that are controlled by democrats. Look at what is going on as fare as tax rates in Chicago, if you don't like that Los Angeles, if you don't like that New York......a city in each region of this country run by DEMOCRATS. Look, then tell me their ideas work, lolololol. Where did the workers go in these citys? Why did the companys leave? Why is everyone who is left that works getting fleeced? Why is nobody coming back in? Are you going to move in to prove your point and pay more taxes, lololol. (this I gotta see)

 

You are being led down the primrose path by socialists who ideas are in force in these city showing they don't work, and you need to look into it NOW!!!!!!!!

A perfect example of emotion overcoming logic. What does a U.S. Senator have to do with how a city is run in the state he represents? Nothing. Does any U.S. Senator have anything to do with the day-to-day politics of his or her home state? No. More emotional bullshit to obscure reasonable, rational discourse.

 

And New York, Einstein, has Mike Bloomberg for mayor, who ran as a Republican, then declared himself an independent. And prior to him was Giuliani , a Republican. Three Democrats before Giuliani, and another Republican before them. So who is responsible for NYC's problems? And New York State, going back to 1943, has had just about as many Republican governors as Democrats.

[Len_A]

I'm not forgetting that. And while I can agree with some of what you say regarding Pork Barrel spending (I think a lot of farm subsidies should go away for instance), the fact of the matter is that the "Reagan Revolution" was just that - a revolution. It dragged everybody to the right, Democrats included. Clinton was further to the right - more anti-labor, more pro free trade, than Nixon was. The prevailing orthodoxy for these 28 years has been anti-government, anti-tax, anti-regulation, and trickle-down. Well, deregulation and trickle-down (tax policies that favor the accumulation of capital with the idea that it will somehow be used to benefit the many) have resulted in an explosion of monopolies, a mass export of productive industry, the evisceration of the American middle class, and a polarization of wealth that is neither socially nor economically healthy in the long run. And is morally reprehensible. That is my point. I have spent some time in other countries (Japan and the UK), and I can tell you that government run health care is not the nightmare that your handlers would have you believe. On the contrary. We spend much much more per capita than any other country on healthcare, yet millions of us go without, and our life expectancy continues to slip in the rankings (43rd now out of 180-some countries, I think). There are some matters that only make sense as collective endeavors. There is no economic argument to be made for taking care of the sick and dying: they (which will eventually be each and every one of us) are unproductive, they have no future, they consume resources, they will pay anything to prolong life. Care of the sick and dying is strictly altruistic. The interests of capital and of the sick and dying and their families are in complete opposition to each other. To pretend otherwise is to be living in a fantasy world. It's time for us to pull our heads out of our butts and recognize that maybe Sweden, Norway, Japan - in fact the entire rest of the first world (I am beginning to question our continued membership) have a better approach to healthcare than Somalia does, and we should be emulating them instead.

 

IMO. But yes, vote your conscience. That we can agree on.

And I find myself in agreement with you again. A pleasure to read a post that has some rational thought behind it.

[RangerM]

Len A,

 

You list yourself as being from Metro Detroit. Your (soon to be ex-) mayor does not represent you well. From my conservative perspective, I cannot understand how your fellow citizens can vote for K. Kilpatrick (who will be convicted of multiple corruption charges), or a city council under investigation (Synagro corruption case) by the FBI.

 

For every emotionally-charged, irrational statement made by a conservative, I assure you it can be met with the same from a liberal. You must be aware of that, but if not, feel free to challenge me.

 

I will be happy to engage in any rational discourse you choose. No emotion, nothing based on anything other than reason.

 

What's your poison?

Edited August 14, 2008 by RangerM

[cal50]

All you need do to find out if all of this stuff works is LOOK what are pays the highest % in local taxes. Guess who it is, lololololol. CHICAGO ILL.

 

For those BRILLIANT prognosticators who want to point at how this and that doesn't work, lets look at YOUR solution. CHICAGO ILLINOIS!!!!!!

 

Tell everyone how the school kids are doing!!!!

 

Tell everyone how small crime is!!!!

 

Tell everyone how businesses are flocking to the city if they don't have taxbreaks, or not fleeing when they don't have them either.

 

What political party runs Chicago, tell us!!!! How well is the plan working? Is it anywhere near better than say, Tucson Arizona? How about Kansas City? What about Oklahoma City?

 

Chicago is one of the most CORRUPT citys in America, and yet the tried and true Democrats run it, lolol.

 

It is virtually laughable!!!!! Just look at the large citys that have instituted more taxes and control under Dems leadership, and tell all of us what you see. Here, let me help you with the correct words-------->ABJECT FAILURE!!!! And now, how dumb are we to let them DARE try and even debate the issue while holding a straight face?

 

Tell all of us what Chicagos direct cash shortfall is, and what % of total income that shows?!?!?! Los Angeles? New York? These are microcosims of YOUR BRILLIANT ideas in action. And guess what!!!!! They DO NOT FUND A MILITARY, so how can they be broke and in deficit, lololol!!!!!

 

It is not that I am here to proclaim that republican ideas are brilliant, but rather that the alternative is a mirror of big citys that are controlled by democrats. Look at what is going on as fare as tax rates in Chicago, if you don't like that Los Angeles, if you don't like that New York......a city in each region of this country run by DEMOCRATS. Look, then tell me their ideas work, lolololol. Where did the workers go in these citys? Why did the companys leave? Why is everyone who is left that works getting fleeced? Why is nobody coming back in? Are you going to move in to prove your point and pay more taxes, lololol. (this I gotta see)

 

You are being led down the primrose path by socialists who ideas are in force in these city showing they don't work, and you need to look into it NOW!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Come on now,you know it's still Bush #1 or #2 fault!

 

Realistically there is little difference between the two political parties (now) but there is a difference in how the individuals actually vote. Regardless of what your party is few if any actually hold to a budget and the wasted tax dollars on shit projects and spending only make matters worse. I have never been a party line voter and never will be. For the many people that are looking for a freebie be it health care or another federal give away program just remember there is nothing free and someone pays for it. The democrats think businesses will foot the bill but it only gets passed along to the consumer or out of the employees pockets. The flip side is corporate welfare which is just as bad. The working are stuck in the middle paying everyones way.The next president will have some VERY important decisions to make. As much as I wish there were two different people to choose from I do not get a warm feeling having McCain make those decisions but compared to the icy chill of someone like Obama making those decisions McCain wins hands down. I know its not a coincidence that the largest democratic run cities are the biggest shit holes (but do have the best trauma centers). Obama seems like a nice guy but if he really believes you can talk your way out of real problems or raising taxes to fix our economy he is a fool. Carter was and still is a fool and Obama is using the same play book.

[Len_A]

Len A,

 

You list yourself as being from Metro Detroit. Your (soon to be ex-) mayor does not represent you well. From my conservative perspective, I cannot understand how your fellow citizens can vote for K. Kilpatrick (who will be convicted of multiple corruption charges), or a city council under investigation (Synagro corruption case) by the FBI.

 

For every emotionally-charged, irrational statement made by a conservative, I assure you it can be met with the same from a liberal. You must be aware of that, but if not, feel free to challenge me.

 

I will be happy to engage in any rational discourse you choose. No emotion, nothing based on anything other than reason.

 

What's your poison?

First of all, I'm in the suburbs of Detroit, so I can not vote for the Mayor of Detroit. None of the suburban voters can - we have to put up with the damage caused by, what amounts to a handful of idiot voters. You go look on a map of the southeast Michigan area - what you would call Detroit proper amounts to less than one third of the total population. Living in the western part of Wayne County, I'm no more responsible for Kwame Kilpatrick being voted into office than a voter from very Republican areas like Bloomfield Hills or Novi in Oakland County, or St. Clair Shores in Macomb County. He's not their soon-to-be ex-mayor any more than he is mine. None of us voted for the bastard, nor the members of Detroit city council that are under investigation.

 

Of course liberals will serve up some totally irrational, emotionally charge nonsense - like I asked in a previous post, what the hell does it take for everyone to recognize whack jobs on EITHER side? Having a marketing background, however, I have to give kudos to the right wing of American politics for being more effective in manipulating the situation with emotionally charged issues, especially those that don't affect the pocketbooks of the middle class. No one else does as good a job as getting people worked up over social issues that once decided one way or the other, don't help the middle class put food on the table, save for their kids education, or save for retirement.

 

As a moderate independent, do I think issues of social conservatism have any merit? Nope. As a friend of mine who is very heavily involved in Michigan's GOP has repeated told me, they're all just a smoke screen. Main objective is to use social conservatism to work people up, and link social conservatism with fiscal conservatism and smaller government. Liberals will try to be as effective, but short of playing on the majority of the publics disapproval of the Iraq war, they really don't have as many "heart-string" issues to manipulate voters with. And I'd be a fool if I didn't think they aren't trying to find them and wouldn't utilize them if they came up.

 

However, the criticisms of McCain don't fall under that category. I'll debate with anybody, but trying to equate bringing up McCain's Navy Academy academic record, his flight skills, or his Pensacola superior officers evaluations of his flight training school performance, with trying to connect Obama to a college professor's politics,or trying to connect Obama with statements made by people Obama has no control over. The questions regarding some of McCain's background stems from documentation that was easily discovered under the Freedom of Information Act. The crap on the USS Forrestal incident, regarding blaming McCain, is just that, crap. The crap on Obama is just mudslinging. It's bigotry rooted in the fact that he has an unconventional name, that he's African American, and the fact that there isn't a lot of skeletons to find, so they start grasping at straws. You conservatives are right about the comparison between McCain's decades of experience and Obama's relatively short resume, but it's a two edged sword. McCain has far more gaffs, goof-up, inconstancies, reversals, contradictions, and questions. They're both excellent politicians, in that they both have flip flopped on issues. No argument from me on Obama's, but I question all of you dedicated conservatives in whether you would admit the same on McCain. McCain is the one who rain in 2000 on a platform he called the "Straight Talk Express" (I remember, because I voted for him in Michigan's GOP primary). His denouncement of Jerry Falwell resonated with me back then. Now I find him to be a hypocrite, so intent on winning his party's nomination, and the Presidency, that now he's made nice with the religious right. And that's only the tip of the iceberg, as far as what influences my vote.

 

Sorry, but nothing in Obama's background affects my opinion the same way. You offer rational discourse, then you pick your poison. You've already proven my point on the conservatives tendency to use emotionally charged nonsense by trying to tie a suburban resident with a big city mayor he or she couldn't possibly have voted for, and can do nothing to legally help in removing that mayor from office. A perfect example of trying to taint or obfuscate the discourse with inaccuracies, innuendo, and lies.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Len_A

[skittet150]

First of all, I'm in the suburbs of Detroit, so I can not vote for the Mayor of Detroit. None of the suburban voters can - we have to put up with the damage caused by, what amounts to a handful of idiot voters. You go look on a map of the southeast Michigan area - what you would call Detroit proper amounts to less than one third of the total population. Living in the western part of Wayne County, I'm no more responsible for Kwame Kilpatrick being voted into office than a voter from very Republican areas like Bloomfield Hills or Novi in Oakland County, or St. Clair Shores in Macomb County. He's not their soon-to-be ex-mayor any more than he is mine. None of us voted for the bastard, nor the members of Detroit city council that are under investigation.

 

Of course liberals will serve up some totally irrational, emotionally charge nonsense - like I asked in a previous post, what the hell does it take for everyone to recognize whack jobs on EITHER side? Having a marketing background, however, I have to give kudos to the right wing of American politics for being more effective in manipulating the situation with emotionally charged issues, especially those that don't affect the pocketbooks of the middle class. No one else does as good a job as getting people worked up over social issues that once decided one way or the other, don't help the middle class put food on the table, save for their kids education, or save for retirement.

 

As a moderate independent, do I think issues of social conservatism have any merit? Nope. As a friend of mine who is very heavily involved in Michigan's GOP has repeated told me, they're all just a smoke screen. Main objective is to use social conservatism to work people up, and link social conservatism with fiscal conservatism and smaller government. Liberals will try to be as effective, but short of playing on the majority of the publics disapproval of the Iraq war, they really don't have as many "heart-string" issues to manipulate voters with. And I'd be a fool if I didn't think they aren't trying to find them and wouldn't utilize them if they came up.

 

However, the criticisms of McCain don't fall under that category. I'll debate with anybody, but trying to equate bringing up McCain's Navy Academy academic record, his flight skills, or his Pensacola superior officers evaluations of his flight training school performance, with trying to connect Obama to a college professor's politics,or trying to connect Obama with statements made by people Obama has no control over. The questions regarding some of McCain's background stems from documentation that was easily discovered under the Freedom of Information Act. The crap on the USS Forrestal incident, regarding blaming McCain, is just that, crap. The crap on Obama is just mudslinging. It's bigotry rooted in the fact that he has an unconventional name, that he's African American, and the fact that there isn't a lot of skeletons to find, so they start grasping at straws. You conservatives are right about the comparison between McCain's decades of experience and Obama's relatively short resume, but it's a two edged sword. McCain has far more gaffs, goof-up, inconstancies, reversals, contradictions, and questions. They're both excellent politicians, in that they both have flip flopped on issues. No argument from me on Obama's, but I question all of you dedicated conservatives in whether you would admit the same on McCain. McCain is the one who rain in 2000 on a platform he called the "Straight Talk Express" (I remember, because I voted for him in Michigan's GOP primary). His denouncement of Jerry Falwell resonated with me back then. Now I find him to be a hypocrite, so intent on winning his party's nomination, and the Presidency, that now he's made nice with the religious right. And that's only the tip of the iceberg, as far as what influences my vote.

 

Sorry, but nothing in Obama's background affects my opinion the same way. You offer rational discourse, then you pick your poison. You've already proven my point on the conservatives tendency to use emotionally charged nonsense by trying to tie a suburban resident with a big city mayor he or she couldn't possibly have voted for, and can do nothing to legally help in removing that mayor from office. A perfect example of trying to taint or obfuscate the discourse with inaccuracies, innuendo, and lies.

If the right uses emotionally charged issues to rally the troops, then the dems that support Obama use the "I wasn't aware of that" approach to further snow thier followers. Barry surrounds himself with crooks and bigots, and then when called out, claims he knew nothing. After he sees that it bringing down his poll numbers, he throws them under the bus. I cannot support somebody who unaware of what is going on with some of his closest friends and spiritual mentors, and rely on him to be aware of what is going on with some of the biggest threats to the freedom of our country. Call it emotionally charged, or any other silly phrase they have come up with to describe conservatives, I won't disagree. I think it is well worth getting emotional over some of the proven issues that have come up concerning Obama's past. And please, please do not bring up the "black" or "Africian American" twist that the libs put on this as an excuse for not voting for him. That is just disrespectful.

[wescoent]

And New York, Einstein, has Mike Bloomberg for mayor, who ran as a Republican, then declared himself an independent. And prior to him was Giuliani , a Republican. Three Democrats before Giuliani, and another Republican before them. So who is responsible for NYC's problems? And New York State, going back to 1943, has had just about as many Republican governors as Democrats.

 

Umm.

 

New York City's taxes are high because our land values are through the roof, due to the local economic boom since Rudy came to office.

 

We also have one of the lowest crime rates of any city over 100,000 people in the US, and easily the lowest of the top 20 largest by a very wide margin.

 

Not bad for a city run by Republicans.

[NickF1011]

Umm.

 

New York City's taxes are high because our land values are through the roof, due to the local economic boom since Rudy came to office.

 

We also have one of the lowest crime rates of any city over 100,000 people in the US, and easily the lowest of the top 20 largest by a very wide margin.

 

Not bad for a city run by Republicans.

 

Compare that to Baltimore which has been historically a super-Democratic city. Horrible land value. Horrible crime. Any businesses that are moving in are moving in outside of city limits. Outside the Inner Harbor and a few small re-developed communities, the city is a cesspool.

 

Of course, you can use San Francisco as an example of a polar opposite though I guess. :shrug:

Edited August 14, 2008 by NickF1011

[Floyd Lawson]

more anti-labor, more pro free trade

 

Interesting!

[Len_A]

If the right uses emotionally charged issues to rally the troops, then the dems that support Obama use the "I wasn't aware of that" approach to further snow thier followers. Barry surrounds himself with crooks and bigots, and then when called out, claims he knew nothing. After he sees that it bringing down his poll numbers, he throws them under the bus. I cannot support somebody who unaware of what is going on with some of his closest friends and spiritual mentors, and rely on him to be aware of what is going on with some of the biggest threats to the freedom of our country. Call it emotionally charged, or any other silly phrase they have come up with to describe conservatives, I won't disagree. I think it is well worth getting emotional over some of the proven issues that have come up concerning Obama's past. And please, please do not bring up the "black" or "Africian American" twist that the libs put on this as an excuse for not voting for him. That is just disrespectful.

 

Then start being specific with what issues, from when in his past. I'm well aware of the situation with Tony Rezko. You've got a local land deal scandal going up against a paid McCain adviser, Randy Scheunemann, getting paid by a foreign government, and then lobbying Senator McCain or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span, on behalf of that government. And now he's a paid adviser to McCain?

 

You've got former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, having worked heavily on a bill that relaxed federal oversight on commodity trading (The Commodities Futures Modernization Act), that had help from Enron lobbyists, that in turn helped pull some federal oversight from trading in oil futures. McCain voted for this bill. Same Phil Gramm worked on loosening restrictions in Wall Street, that allowed the trading in certain mortgaged backed securities, that this administration and President Bush himself is crediting (blaming actually) for helping make the mortgage crisis worse. McCain voted yes on that bill, too. Same Phil Gramm that called us a country of whiners for complaining about the economy,and didn't get off McCain's campaign staff for over a week after those "mental recession" statements. Until then, one of McCain's chief economic advisers, whom McCain sought help from, because McCain is, by his own admission, weak on economic affairs.

 

Then we have McCain trying to tell working people, like you and I, what's best for our health insurance (like trying to encourage employers to drop health insurance in favor of just giving us the money to supposedly go out and buy our insurance), when McCain, and the son of a Navy four star, and a student at Annapolis, then a Navy officer, then a U.S. Congressman, and then U.S. Senator, has always been, in one form or another, under some kind of government health care or government health insurance, and in the case of the Federal Employees Health Insurance he has had upon being elected to Congress, is far better than anything you and I are likely to get from a private employer.

 

And I'm supposed to care about some loud mouth minister's comments, because Obama went to that church and wasn't fast enough for you to denounce him?

 

And as far as Obama's race, there's plenty of garbage emails being forwarded questioning Obama's fitness to be President on the basis of his name, his father's ethnicity, and where Obama grew up, plus plenty of loud mouth preachers and radio commentators repeating them. John McCain, to his credit, denounced all of them every time it came up during the primaries. It doesn't, however, stop the extreme part of the right from dragging the crap out over and over again. And when I have neighbors, in a mostly white collar, at least 50% Republican neighborhood, my own subdivision, and self described blue collar Republicans in my parents neighborhood, using the N word in reference to Obama, it's race based, regardless of how disrespectful you call it. When the Michigan Republican Party and the National Republican Party say Michigan is now in play, because the City of Detroit's African American Mayor, Kwame Kirkpatrick, got himself in to a whole load of well deserved felony charges, it's race based, again regardless of how disrespectful you call it. Go tell your own political allies to watch their behavior.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Len_A

[fordxer]

Cite your source, because most of what you claim has been disproved, and the only one that may not be disproved is a bit of a distortion. And that's being civil in my reply.

I hope this is good enough. If not let me know, I will find more

 

CASTRO: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...ama-castro.html

CPUSA: http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2008/08/12...d-barack-obama/

HAMAS: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php

[Len_A]

I hope this is good enough. If not let me know, I will find more

 

CASTRO: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...ama-castro.html

CPUSA: http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2008/08/12...d-barack-obama/

HAMAS: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php

So basically, you prove my point. If you had bothered to do some objective research, you might have found this out instead of the same old garbage.

 

CASTRO: Debunked by a newspaper that has also called Obama to task for flip-flopping: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/510/

 

CPUSA: Complete distoration and blatant mudslinging. Do you want to be held responsivle for the politics of one of your mentors from your youth? Are you responsible for what either of parents said, either in your youth, or yesterday? Come on, this is pathetic. McCarthyism is making a comeback? Did you read what I posted about recognizing slander that comes from whack jobs on both sides of the political aisle? Nothing in this accusation has any credibility.

 

HAMAS: Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 - go look it up. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2370 Sponsored by Sen. Mitch McConnel, R-KY, co sponsored by Sen. Barak Obama, D- IL, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, and 88 other senators. Calls for "members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas" to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous accords negotiated by Israel has negotiated with its Arab neighbors and with the Palestine Liberation Organization. All of which Obama reiterated back in April of this year when he told a Jewish group that as he puts it, and Hamas and other political movements similar to it. "Hamas is not a state, Hamas is a terrorist organization." Bottom of this page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24549744/

 

Try again citing credible sources. Better yet, cite credible sources that dispute the low grades while at Annapolis and crashed three planes prior to serving in Vietnam accusations. Cite credible sources that would disprove McCain having been under federal government military doctors health care and then federal employees health insurance all of his life, save for the five years he was a P.O.W. Cite sources that dispute McCain's votes in support of Phil Gramms various bills that benefited only a select few. Cite credible sources that dispute McCain opposing Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 as disproportionately benefiting the rich, only now to flip flop when he needs the support of the party's more conservative members. Cite credible sources disproving the criticism of McCain.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Len_A

[chiefstang]

Uhh, this is a Ford forum. You guys can have your little liberal douchebag butt plugging fest on one of your liberal douchebag but plugging forums. Don't need to read it here

[Len_A]

Uhh, this is a Ford forum. You guys can have your little liberal douchebag butt plugging fest on one of your liberal douchebag but plugging forums. Don't need to read it here

Go tell it to the moderators - they moved the thread, not locked it or deleted it. If the rest of us feel like having a political debate, it's our business. No one is making you read it, are they?

[chiefstang]

Go tell it to the moderators - they moved the thread, not locked it or deleted it. If the rest of us feel like having a political debate, it's our business. No one is making you read it, are they?

Yeah, 6 out of 10 posts on this thread are you. Stand on the corner with a "the end is near" sign and a megaphone, why don't you.

[chiefstang]

Wow, taking awhile, must be typing a real long one this time.

[Len_A]

Wow, taking awhile, must be typing a real long one this time.

naw, just busy eating dinner and left the page up on my browser after one of the "this site exceeded it's CPU quota" pages

[99ktpbirdman]

And I find myself in agreement with you again. A pleasure to read a post that has some rational thought behind it.

You two stop it and go get a motel room.

[RangerM]

You offer rational discourse, then you pick your poison. You've already proven my point on the conservatives tendency to use emotionally charged nonsense by trying to tie a suburban resident with a big city mayor he or she couldn't possibly have voted for, and can do nothing to legally help in removing that mayor from office. A perfect example of trying to taint or obfuscate the discourse with inaccuracies, innuendo, and lies.

 

The term "Metro" usually means in the city, as in Metro Police. You have stated you live in "Metro Detroit", therefore based on my understanding of the definition of the term metro, I have automatically assumed that you live within the city limits, and are eligible to vote for them. An error or my part. However, since you have chosen to blast conservatives in general, I am pointing out the error of casting stones, while living in a glass house.

 

Now, you are correct in your assertion that many on the right attempt to manipulate those less informed by using such 'issues' as BO's middle name, his upbringing (implying he is a closet Muslim), or the actions of some of his surrogates (such as inserting more white faces in the crowd behind him).

 

However, some of these issues are legitimate. Since you admit Obama's resume is a bit lacking, what would you propose we base any/all judgements on? (as for myself, I need more than a good speech)

 

You say that those on the right are guilty of bring race into the mix. I can think of no Republican leader or candidate that has insinuated that Obama is unqualified based on his race. Can you name one? As best I can tell the most flagrant one to bring up the subject of race is Obama himself........

 

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’"

 

"They’re going to try to make me into a scary guy,” he said last week. “They’re even trying to make Michelle into a scary person. Right?" And so that drumbeat – 'we’re not sure if he’s patriotic or not; we’re not sure if he is too black.'"

 

or

 

"doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." His own aides admit he is referring to his race.

 

Is this a conservative conspiracy? Do you think attempting to portray all Republicans as racists isn't 'emotionally charged'?

 

But let's not stop there. Here are some of those other "heart-pulling" Obama quotes.......(NOTE: I am not 'cherry-picking'. These are the entire quotes)

 

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The tornado in fact killed 12. Was he pulling at heart strings, or just wrong by 3 orders of magnitude?

 

"We're not going to deputize a whole bunch of American citizens to start grabbing people or turning them in, in part because the ordinary American citizen may not know whether or not this person is illegal or not. But, you know, the notion that we're going to criminalize priests, for example, or doctors who are providing services to individuals, and throw them in jail for doing what their calling asks them to do, which is to provide help and service to people in need, I think that is a mistake. I think that's out of America's character." Dec. 4. 2007 Democratic Debate on NPR whether or not US citizens should report known undocumented immigrants to law enforcement officials.

 

"The system isn't working when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids – when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel. When all that's happening, the system just isn't working." July 13, 2008 speech before the National Council of La Raza

 

Shall I go on?

[Edstock]

And I find myself in agreement with you again. A pleasure to read a post that has some rational thought behind it.

I second that.

[Len_A]

The term "Metro" usually means in the city, as in Metro Police. You have stated you live in "Metro Detroit", therefore based on my understanding of the definition of the term metro, I have automatically assumed that you live within the city limits, and are eligible to vote for them. An error or my part. However, since you have chosen to blast conservatives in general, I am pointing out the error of casting stones, while living in a glass house.

 

Now, you are correct in your assertion that many on the right attempt to manipulate those less informed by using such 'issues' as BO's middle name, his upbringing (implying he is a closet Muslim), or the actions of some of his surrogates (such as inserting more white faces in the crowd behind him).

 

However, some of these issues are legitimate. Since you admit Obama's resume is a bit lacking, what would you propose we base any/all judgements on? (as for myself, I need more than a good speech)

 

You say that those on the right are guilty of bring race into the mix. I can think of no Republican leader or candidate that has insinuated that Obama is unqualified based on his race. Can you name one? As best I can tell the most flagrant one to bring up the subject of race is Obama himself........

 

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run," said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. "They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?'"

 

"They're going to try to make me into a scary guy," he said last week. "They're even trying to make Michelle into a scary person. Right?" And so that drumbeat – 'we're not sure if he's patriotic or not; we're not sure if he is too black.'"

 

or

 

"doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." His own aides admit he is referring to his race.

 

Is this a conservative conspiracy? Do you think attempting to portray all Republicans as racists isn't 'emotionally charged'?

 

But let's not stop there. Here are some of those other "heart-pulling" Obama quotes.......(NOTE: I am not 'cherry-picking'. These are the entire quotes)

 

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The tornado in fact killed 12. Was he pulling at heart strings, or just wrong by 3 orders of magnitude?

 

"We're not going to deputize a whole bunch of American citizens to start grabbing people or turning them in, in part because the ordinary American citizen may not know whether or not this person is illegal or not. But, you know, the notion that we're going to criminalize priests, for example, or doctors who are providing services to individuals, and throw them in jail for doing what their calling asks them to do, which is to provide help and service to people in need, I think that is a mistake. I think that's out of America's character." Dec. 4. 2007 Democratic Debate on NPR whether or not US citizens should report known undocumented immigrants to law enforcement officials.

 

"The system isn't working when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids – when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel. When all that's happening, the system just isn't working." July 13, 2008 speech before the National Council of La Raza

 

Shall I go on?

 

 

Did I say that Republican leaders insinuated that race made Obama unqualified to be President. I said there were a lot of racist emails being forward around, and far right preachers and commentator's bad mouthing of Obama was denounced by McCain.

 

Did I say I was basing my decision to vote for Obama on his speeches? Please, find where I said that, and please direct me to it. Why am I supporting Obama? Because of his deep background? Nope. I'll admit he wasn't my first choice, but as a former card carrying, dues paying Republican, I am completely disenchanted with the GOP. Last Republican I voted for, hmmmm, let's see, I think I posted that...oh, yea, last Republican I voted for was McCain in 2000. I already said that - go back and read where I said his denouncement of Robertson and Falwell as "agents of intolerance" resonated with me. I liked his maverick approach.

 

You know what - I'm not impressed with him any more. To rally the troops, he makes nice with Falwell, and the religious Right? No way. He denounces Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as being too generous for the rich, and now he wants to make them permanent? To appease who? Do I care if you get a tax cut? Hell yes - you should. I hope I should. But a couple of percent tax for us in the middle class, and we're supposed to be so grateful that we're supposed to support eight, nine, and ten percentage point drops in the tax rate for people making more than a half a million dollars a year? Our tax code is graduated for a reason - the very wealthy can afford to pay more. I'm supposed to get upset if some seven figure a year actor or athlete gets his or her taxes raised? Are you kidding me? Raise their marginal tax rate to fifty percent for all I care, if it means your kids get to go to college and you get covered with some decent health insurance if you lose your job. No, I don't want a flat tax. Not buying it. Not buying trickle-down economics anymore either. The far left isn't the answer, but the right? They aren't the answer any more.

 

You don't know me - some of the others on the forum, Ford employees, hourly and salaried, know a little about me, even when we don't always agree. Bachelor's degree in marketing, one third of the credits for an MBA done. Twenty-five years experience in outside sales. Unemployed for a bit over eleven months. I have a first interview Friday morning. First one in six f*cking weeks. Voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries, and then for "Dubya" in the general election, because, like a lot of Detroiters (and that refers to all of us in the metropolitan Detroit area - sorry, had to sneak that in<grin>), I was scared to death that Gore would be horrible for the Detroit auto industry. Well, we've had two terms of Bush. All of the southeast Michigan area is far worse off than we were in 2000. My neighbor's house next door to me was purchased right after 9-11 for $275,000. Identical home across the street was abandon in January, put on the market for $199,000. Entire sub of 120 houses is no older than 12 years old, all full brick houses, with full basements. Last 20 houses all sold in 1998 for over $210,000. Ten years later, none can sell for over $190,000 and we have five empty homes. Eight years of a Republican White House, and I'm supposed to support McCain? McCain, who is refusing to support the idea of loan guarantees for the Detroit Three? McCain who is still supporting free trade, even when it is fair trade? No thanks. McCain, the product of government health care, telling us his idea of reforming health acre is to do away with the idea of employer provided health care, a system that's been in place since WW II?

 

Obama's resume may or may not be thin, but McCain's experience is useless in my eyes. One thing I know about the GOP is that if things ever get bad enough for you that you're pushed to society's margins, you better not expect anything from the Reagan and post Reagan GOP (and I also voted for Reagan). I'm not some welfare cheat. I'm not some uneducated high school dropout. Educated white collar professionals like me, my age (nearly 49) are getting canned/laid off left and right, and there's nothing out there. What "wealth" we have is tied up in a house that I still owe payments on, but can't sell, to get the hell out of here and relocate. My "retirement plan" is now nonexistent, and if it wasn't for my wife's job, we have no income and no health insurance. And all I've heard from other conservatives is that it's tough luck for us, it's not government's job to help. Well then, whose job is it? McCain is the answer? I think not. I don't think we can survive four to eight more years of this.

 

retro-man was right on point when he said the Reagan Revolution dragged us to the right, and he was right when he implied the wealth redistribution has been in favor of the wealthy. Time to swing back a bit to the middle.

[fordxer]

So basically, you prove my point. If you had bothered to do some objective research, you might have found this out instead of the same old garbage.

 

CASTRO: Debunked by a newspaper that has also called Obama to task for flip-flopping: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/510/

 

CPUSA: Complete distoration and blatant mudslinging. Do you want to be held responsivle for the politics of one of your mentors from your youth? Are you responsible for what either of parents said, either in your youth, or yesterday? Come on, this is pathetic. McCarthyism is making a comeback? Did you read what I posted about recognizing slander that comes from whack jobs on both sides of the political aisle? Nothing in this accusation has any credibility.

 

HAMAS: Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 - go look it up. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2370 Sponsored by Sen. Mitch McConnel, R-KY, co sponsored by Sen. Barak Obama, D- IL, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, and 88 other senators. Calls for "members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas" to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous accords negotiated by Israel has negotiated with its Arab neighbors and with the Palestine Liberation Organization. All of which Obama reiterated back in April of this year when he told a Jewish group that as he puts it, and Hamas and other political movements similar to it. "Hamas is not a state, Hamas is a terrorist organization." Bottom of this page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24549744/

 

Try again citing credible sources. Better yet, cite credible sources that dispute the low grades while at Annapolis and crashed three planes prior to serving in Vietnam accusations. Cite credible sources that would disprove McCain having been under federal government military doctors health care and then federal employees health insurance all of his life, save for the five years he was a P.O.W. Cite sources that dispute McCain's votes in support of Phil Gramms various bills that benefited only a select few. Cite credible sources that dispute McCain opposing Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 as disproportionately benefiting the rich, only now to flip flop when he needs the support of the party's more conservative members. Cite credible sources disproving the criticism of McCain.

You asked for me to cite my sources. I did. Two of my sources are reputable news agencies and the other is form there very own web site. What more do you want. I do n ot totally agree with McCain. But I have not foound a single thing that I agree with Obama on. Wait, ther is one thing. He says he is for change. I will agree with that since that is all I will have left in my pocket when he gets through taxing me to death to fund all of the LIBERAL give away programs he believes. Like I said, I don't always agree with McCain, but at least I will still be able to earn a decent living for my family without share with the whole commune.

[xr7g428]

I want Obama to win. Listening to Bush bashing is exhausting. Not that it isn't justified, I am just tired of listening to the constant yapping.

 

Given that, there is no way a white guy named Jones could get any where close to where Obama is on a resume that thin. Compared to Obama, just about any one who has a real job is better qualified. Never the less, lucky beats smart every time, I hope the USA is lucky.

 

Len, if you have filled out many job applications, I am sure that you have noticed that if you are a veteran you literally get points for that, if you are in a wheel chair, that is worth more than being a veteran, and if by chance you are both a veteran and in a wheel chair you have hit the jackpot. A college educated middle aged white guy is almost unemployable right now. I do wish you the best of luck.

 

And before I get flamed too much, I am part Cherokee, and I want to know when the lot of you illegals are leaving... LOL!

[retro-man]

While we're talking about qualifications, let us reflect for a moment on where a man of George Walker Bush's alcoholic, cocaine-snorting, draft-dodging past (sorry for the lese majeste - but it's all true) and intellectual "abilities" would have gotten to had he not been the son of a President and grandson of a Senator. I have always maintained - and still do - that he would be lucky to have risen so high as shift manager at the local tire outlet. Of course, we'll never know for sure, because fate dealt Dubbya the hand it did. He has proved himself with Harken Energy, Arbusto, leaving the state of Texass in a budget deficit, and now with the tremendous economic "turnaround" he has produced in the 2 terms since Clinton. Whatever you may say about Obama, like Clinton, he raised himself up to where he is. It takes more than affirmative action and the sympathy of liberals to find yourself where Obama is now, don't fool yourself. On the other hand, if you like hereditary monarchies, I guess Bush is the poop.

Edited August 15, 2008 by retro-man

[RangerM]

Did I say that Republican leaders insinuated that race made Obama unqualified to be President. I said there were a lot of racist emails being forward around, and far right preachers and commentator's bad mouthing of Obama was denounced by McCain.

 

You said:

 

Having a marketing background, however, I have to give kudos to the right wing of American politics for being more effective in manipulating the situation with emotionally charged issues , especially those that don't affect the pocketbooks of the middle class. No one else does as good a job as getting people worked up over social issues that once decided one way or the other, don't help the middle class put food on the table, save for their kids education, or save for retirement.

 

You also said:

 

The crap on Obama is just mudslinging. It's bigotry rooted in the fact that he has an unconventional name, that he's African American, and the fact that there isn't a lot of skeletons to find, so they start grasping at straws.

 

Consider the entire theme of your posts. You did not say, "Republican Leaders said that Obama is not qualified to be President because of his race" in those exact terms. Instead you use terms like, "you conservatives" and the "right wing of American politics", then inject the language in your second statement.

 

Therefore, yes. You did, by lumping all conservatives together and failing to clarify, include ALL Republicans (including the leaders and me) in your mudslinging comment.

 

Did I say I was basing my decision to vote for Obama on his speeches? Please, find where I said that, and please direct me to it. Why am I supporting Obama? Because of his deep background? Nope. I'll admit he wasn't my first choice, but as a former card carrying, dues paying Republican, I am completely disenchanted with the GOP. Last Republican I voted for, hmmmm, let's see, I think I posted that...oh, yea, last Republican I voted for was McCain in 2000. I already said that - go back and read where I said his denouncement of Robertson and Falwell as "agents of intolerance" resonated with me. I liked his maverick approach.

 

You said: Obama's background isn't as deep as I'd like, but it's an easy decision to make over McCain.

 

I agreed that Obama's resume is lacking. I then went on to ask "what would you propose we base any/all judgements on?". I then clarified my position by saying, "(as for myself, I need more than a good speech)"

 

As far as being disenchanted with the GOP, that is your choice. Did they leave you or you leave them? Going the polar opposite doesn't make much sense to me, unless you share the left-wing's values. I will vote Republican this election, but would vote for a Democrat, if he were the right Democrat. The likes of Obama/Pelosi/Reid/et al absolutely repel me. I would have strongly considered voting for Leiberman in 2000, had he been the top of the ticket. The choices haven't been very good for the last few cycles, although I admit I voted FOR Bush in 2004.

 

You know what - I'm not impressed with him any more. To rally the troops, he makes nice with Falwell, and the religious Right? No way. He denounces Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as being too generous for the rich, and now he wants to make them permanent? To appease who? Do I care if you get a tax cut? Hell yes - you should. I hope I should. But a couple of percent tax for us in the middle class, and we're supposed to be so grateful that we're supposed to support eight, nine, and ten percentage point drops in the tax rate for people making more than a half a million dollars a year? Our tax code is graduated for a reason - the very wealthy can afford to pay more. I'm supposed to get upset if some seven figure a year actor or athlete gets his or her taxes raised? Are you kidding me? Raise their marginal tax rate to fifty percent for all I care, if it means your kids get to go to college and you get covered with some decent health insurance if you lose your job. No, I don't want a flat tax. Not buying it. Not buying trickle-down economics anymore either. The far left isn't the answer, but the right? They aren't the answer any more.

 

I admit that McCain wasn't my first choice, but holding him accountable for 'making nice' isn't reason for me to oppose him. If you have a problem with the "religious right", then it's yours to bear.

 

I prefer no income tax at all. None. Nada. Penalizing someone for their success does nothing to promote acheivement.

 

I prefer pure consumption taxes. Those rich enough to buy more, will pay more. Pass the FairTax, and with the implementation of the pre-bate, the lower income brackets will pay no Federal taxes at all, including payroll taxes.

 

People are only paid what those willing to pay them believe they are worth. Confiscating more of their income is equivalent to taking the portion of their lives they committed to earning it.

 

You don't know me - some of the others on the forum, Ford employees, hourly and salaried, know a little about me, even when we don't always agree. Bachelor's degree in marketing, one third of the credits for an MBA done. Twenty-five years experience in outside sales. Unemployed for a bit over eleven months. I have a first interview Friday morning. First one in six f*cking weeks. Voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries, and then for "Dubya" in the general election, because, like a lot of Detroiters (and that refers to all of us in the metropolitan Detroit area - sorry, had to sneak that in<grin>), I was scared to death that Gore would be horrible for the Detroit auto industry. Well, we've had two terms of Bush. All of the southeast Michigan area is far worse off than we were in 2000. My neighbor's house next door to me was purchased right after 9-11 for $275,000. Identical home across the street was abandon in January, put on the market for $199,000. Entire sub of 120 houses is no older than 12 years old, all full brick houses, with full basements. Last 20 houses all sold in 1998 for over $210,000. Ten years later, none can sell for over $190,000 and we have five empty homes. Eight years of a Republican White House, and I'm supposed to support McCain? McCain, who is refusing to support the idea of loan guarantees for the Detroit Three? McCain who is still supporting free trade, even when it is fair trade? No thanks. McCain, the product of government health care, telling us his idea of reforming health acre is to do away with the idea of employer provided health care, a system that's been in place since WW II?

 

Obama's resume may or may not be thin, but McCain's experience is useless in my eyes. One thing I know about the GOP is that if things ever get bad enough for you that you're pushed to society's margins, you better not expect anything from the Reagan and post Reagan GOP (and I also voted for Reagan). I'm not some welfare cheat. I'm not some uneducated high school dropout. Educated white collar professionals like me, my age (nearly 49) are getting canned/laid off left and right, and there's nothing out there. What "wealth" we have is tied up in a house that I still owe payments on, but can't sell, to get the hell out of here and relocate. My "retirement plan" is now nonexistent, and if it wasn't for my wife's job, we have no income and no health insurance. And all I've heard from other conservatives is that it's tough luck for us, it's not government's job to help. Well then, whose job is it? McCain is the answer? I think not. I don't think we can survive four to eight more years of this.

 

retro-man was right on point when he said the Reagan Revolution dragged us to the right, and he was right when he implied the wealth redistribution has been in favor of the wealthy. Time to swing back a bit to the middle.

 

You've lived in an area with severe economic hard times with no interviews for six weeks, and you (apparently) blame someone else for your troubles? In those eleven months, you couldn't find anything in the entire U.S.? I have an employee working for me who moved here (Raleigh, NC) from Toledo, OH on the basis of economic viability. Have you applied for, or been willing to take, something "beneath" you?

 

Now we are to the crux of the problem. You've lost your job, and for the last eleven months haven't found anything. What have you done to better yourself in the last 11 months? My father, faced with a similar situation in 1991, went back to school to get a nursing degree because it is/was the easiest way for a man in his mid-50s to get a job. He did something about it. Have you done more than submit resumes? If not, why not? And why do you want everyone else in the country (with the Democrats' help) to provide you with the basic necessities of life?

 

No one is accusing you of being a cheat, but you are waiting for something that isn't going to happen. That being, someone knocking on your door (in "greater Detroit" :shades:) to offer you a job.

 

You know of your age and geographical disadvantages. Is anyone going to change that? Obama or McCain? Noone is going to change your life, but you. Start by asking yourself every morning, "What do I have to be happy about?"

 

I sympathize and wish you the best of luck, but also hope that you realize that the theme of Obama's "Hope and Change" is no better than the religious right's faith. Except that the Left's "faith" is in a fallible human being, not the Almighty.