Difference between Obama and McCain - Page 4

I dunno Fellowship, I don't think there's any way to win on this one. McCain will simply step into the same cancerous tax-and-spend policy that Bush and the Congress are following. It's just not sustainable.

Obama seems to want to help the common man, but -- for one example -- what he is saying about NAFTA is naive at best. Whoever his economist advisors are, they'd never dream of standing in front of an economics class and repeat what he's saying.

I think he'll win in November, and that might be the best thing for the debate -- that grain of sand in the proverbial oyster. At least the press wouldn't be all over him like a cheap suit, I think we could all use a break from the Great Satan coverage of the last 8 years. That and maybe the "conservatives" might have to rethink themselves.

Ha! Hassan i Sabbah would like to turn back the clock -- have us raving the praises of Spinoza and Leibniz. (if you are willing to take bets as to whether he has actually sat down and thought it through)

Lame.

If you are afflicted with cancer, it will always be an issue of interest to you. And the idea of taking a break from thinking about it after 8 years of fighting may be a relief, but that doesn't mean the problem has been taken care of.

I don't understand the seeming assumption by many that we will automatically have a quick fix to this problem or that this is an elective condition.

The conservatives are not inventing this. And if we continue thinking it is something we don't have to concern ourselves with we will be giving the bad guys an advantage they will use against us.

And McCain will win or lose the election based on his ability to accurately define the threat of Islamism.

It shouldn't be hard to do.

I don't think McCain will be able to sell the Islamic thing -- I think Bush made it clear that the U.S. is willing to cut its nose off to spite its face with regards to making attacks on America counterproductive.

Besides, American avarice is going to get us long before the terrorists do. Americans are filling both their minds and bodies with garbage -- and literally looking for a "free" magic pill to cure it all. I don't think the economy can absorb another Enron, or Mortgage fiasco. The transaction costs of runaway greed will ruin us all -- and there's nothing any politician can do to stop it.

Neither candidate has the courage to tell the American people that.

Ah. You touched on a subject that's very much in agreement with me. I do not feel that any culture should try to enforce their own laws or beliefs into another. Laws and beliefs that are contrary to the others or may cause harm to another. That's just common sense. Yet here in America we've had Muslim immigrants that do abide by our laws and refrain from practicing their more extreme forms of laws and practices. Maybe because that they see within our culture, we have tried (not to successfully, but the majority have) to go beyond the dogmas and superstitions of the past.

What do you say? 'Nice jihad. Like the dogma. Way to go with the bigotry and the hate?


This bloke rules. But take careful attention as to whom he believes are the catalyst to this trend (hint: Saudi Arabia) (another hint: Our allies for freedom and against terrorism?).

More hints:







Another hint:

All the suspected hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt.

Who's our enemy now?

Ah.. The logical fallacy here is that Hassan, and indeed myself and countless others, don't have a problem with Creationist because they are Creationists (though it certainly doesn't help their cause that they have chosen to base their entire world-view on something that confronts physical reality). You see, the reason why there is something wrong with being a creationist is the same reason why there is something wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim or a dyed-in-the-wool Zionist or... When you check your brain at the door as any of these fundamentalist movements require, you automatically lose whatever advantage our species has over, say, red ants... In other words, there IS something wrong with being a creationist -- it is the explicit requirement that you DENY your biological given ability to critically think about the world around you.

Not at all -- there's very little accurate in that statement.

So you don't believe that Genesis is the literal truth?

Do you believe that Kant's noumenal world exists?

There is something wrong with being ignorant.

But in most cases the ignorant person is not the one who is at fault for being ignorant but (s)he is simply a victim of the failure of society to educate its people.

The best that we can do is try to educate those who are not fortunate enough to have been taught how to reason and judge appropriately.

Creationism is an example of how the United States public school system has failed at teaching its people the basics of scientific thought and enquiry.

With regard to the main topic.

Obama can get an erection, McCain can't.

Just as a different strategy was used to turn the tide in Iraq, a different strategy needs to be used to explain the reality of Islamism. You probably discounted the possibility of progress in Iraq just as you doubt the possibility of successfully selling "the Islamic thing" to the American public. And let's be clear, the thing to be sold should be the threat of Islamism. Not Islam.


Hey, I know what I'll do. I will do an imitation of most of the anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war posters by speaking from what I want to believe, not from what I know and I'll throw a teeny bit of truth in there to make it sound good.

The economy isn't that bad. Enron was years ago, Ken Lay is dead. It can't happen again. And when this administration tried to give poor folks a chance to own their own homes they weren't able to figure out how to keep themselves from getting into trouble. See what happens when you try to treat people with respect?

And all you are doing is fear mongering.

Quit trying to manipulate us.

We know you are smarter than that.

The "suspected hijackers" were as interested in overturning the Saudi government as they are in overturning our government.

Sorry for warping the direction of the thread with a cheap shot at dmz. Let's keep the thread on topic.

Seriously.

OK. I can tell you, from personal experience, that John McCain is perfectly capable of achieving and maintaining a very proud erection, and I think that addabox will back me up on this gobbets of aerated lube and beetroot juice.

Of course there is nothing wrong with being a creationist, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one.

The Bush ruling family is stuck between two contradictory policies: appeasement of Israeli occupation and dependence to Saudi Arabian oil.


Manipulation indeed.

Sounds like a case of Shiite envy to me.

Oh, and with an endorsement by Michael Moore you know it's got to be a [sarcasm] great book. [/sarcasm]

Not at all, the current State Department has proven conclusively that it does not understand the Muslim ethos. It is playing politics against principle -- for the nth time -- it's LBJ versus Ho Chi Minh all over again.

(The only difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton knew a tar baby when he saw one.)

As to Enron not happening agian, yes they threw up Sarbanes-Oxley, but that didn't stop the entire financial market apparatus -- from S&P ratings down to the prospective homeowner -- from cratering the related markets. There is no end to the permutations of how greed can hobble a free market -- and there's nothing any political entity can do to stop it.

I don't think he went off the handle there, but he was definitely working to keep that legendary temper in check.

my friends

The best thing for the middle class is actually a repeal of AMT legislation and ss/medicare reform. The american middle class doesn't really benefit from government programs, nor does anyone in the skilled working class: the wages for skilled labor are good, and many of these people do independent contract work as well, often subject to heavy taxes. The only class that the government helps is the lower class.

The point is that, in our present economy with a large middle class and a largely skilled working class, Obama's "new new deal" would not help many americans. Obama is also unlikely to repeal the AMT. I'm not saying that McCain would, either, but to say that Obama's platform benefits the middle class is just plain wrong. The types of services he wants to nationalize do nothing except remove choice and create new bureaucracies, both of which are harmful to the middle class as we know it.

The difference between these two is that one has a good chance at the presidency this time and one doesn't.

A hint : that one doesn't have white hair!

I can't wait until November -- I'll get to decide between "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend."

Yipppee!

Well at least tax and spend doesn't lead to bankruptcy. Sounds like a better plan to me.

Even though the fact is that Democrats spend less.

Unfortunately, there is no way to gauge what the government budget would be in 2008 had Gore or Kerry been elected. It's no mystery that Bush-the-younger is not a fiscal conservative, but it's hard to fathom that an administration pushing the expansion of government-run services would also be able to reduce government spending. If you think cuts in defense spending will make up the difference, that's unfortunately too impractical for the foreseeable future. Two-thirds of the world relies on the fact that the US military tends to intervene: Serbia is a better example than the present Iraq conflict, because it shows how incapable the EU is of solving its own problems. Even if by some act of God our allies decided to ramp up their militaries and be vigilant, it would be many years before the US could reduce its deployment in these countries. Even if we withdraw from Iraq, there's still a lot of very-necessary defense budget.

The main point I continue to raise, however, is that it's not the middle class at all that stands to benefit from the plans that the Democratic candidates are harboring. The middle class do not generally need universal healthcare (or very much at all) from the federal government. The lower classes -- not including the skilled working class -- are the beneficiaries here. This may be just as well by your reasoning, and I'm not trying to tell you that you're opinion is a bad one. It's just not the middle class that stand to benefit.

I am not going to vote for him unless I am really blown away in the next few months, but I can't say that McCain appears to be more fiscally irresponsible than Bush is. Frankly, I'm not sure if it's possible to be more fiscally irresponsible than Bush is. One thing for sure is that the tax refunds are going to go away, and McCain will have to make cut-backs if he intends to hold to his promise of "no new taxes."

Anyway, I've thought about it, and if the democrats have their way and introduce new federal programs, I'm moving to central Europe. If I'm going to be paying a lot in taxes in the USA, I may as well pay a lot in taxes somewhere else, get free defense courtesy of the USA, and live in a place that's square km for square km more interesting that the USA is.

John McCain on The Daily Show (Aug 17, 2007):


Gee, what happened? It's downright inhuman to expect a near-doddering old man to be consistent or to hold him to this word. After 65 you respond more to your bladder than to being sensible. Flip? Meet flop...

McCain and Clinton have had more reinventions than Madonna. \

Rod Parsley / McCain

Looks like we are in for a war against all of Islam.
Hurray!

Oddly,
Jesus became known (in the bible story) during a time of occupation. Indeed, war is the main reason the bible was composed. It contains messages to the oppressed and plenty of fear.
A new prophet might be coming out of Iraq. People are drawn to the ones that preach against the oppressors and promise them liberty and a better future. We now call them terrorists.
Al Sadr, Jesus and the likes owe their popularity to imperialist invaders. Without brutal slaughter of the innocent, rape and plundering todays religions would not exist.

[CENTER]


[/CENTER]

Very good points Fellows, but I had heard from a co-worker that on ABC's Morning Show today they showed Obama's pastor preaching at his church...

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11


Meanwhile, John McCain has received endorsements from Televangelist John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel* and the senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas.


*Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour

and Televangelist Rod Parsley...

McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam


I notice something...neither Hagee or Parsley have been reported on the MSM (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't watch much MSM), but it seems Wright has been attacked on almost all of them, including Fox News.

Why hasn't the MSM focused on especially these two either? Certainly not because Obama is ahead and leading his party, McCain WON his party nomination. So why isn't the MSM railing him on his endorsements to these nut-jobs?

Just a piece of advice ... If you want to make a case about Jesus this or Jesus that, don't quote Paul's letters, quote Jesus (or, at least, recordings of such). One thing that's always upset me is the line, "what would Jesus do?" For one thing, blind compassion does not appear to be his way, despite that it's what people who use that loaded question expect. For a second thing, judging other people's actions on the basis of their perceived righteousness is one thing we know Jesus does not endorse (many examples). Saying that any given christian is misinterpreting his faith is a tenuous position. We are better suited to judge other people's opinions and actions humanist, secular terms, and that extent should be especially sufficient for judging principals of a government that is not tied to a religion.

Obama didn't even vote on the war at that time. He has only been able to vote as a Jr. Senator in the last two years. He has voted to support the war so how do you know how he would have voted? If he has voted to support the war financially then he probably would have gone along with the rest of his cronies and voted for this war had he been able to.