i'm confused, how did obama....

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
i'm confused, how did obama....
242
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 9:43pm
6 years ago oppose the war in iraq? was he in senate then?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:01pm

Yes, he does bring that war up a lot. But not this.


http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_secretworldofmccain.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:11pm
Man, are you going to HATE the next four - probably eight - years. I had been planning to say farewell to this swamp for good after election day - and that's still my plan, given the abysmally low level of real debate here - but I have to confess, I'm almost tempted to belay that plan, just to see you shriek and flap like a headless chicken, especially if Democrats manage to pull off sixty seats in the Senate. It'd almost be worth it to endure more of your delusional and insulting rants just to watch your head regularly explode at seeing GoOPer cant repudiated by not only reality itself (which happens no matter who's in power), but also by the people who make the laws. That's ALMOST too good an image to pass up.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:15pm
Not just their own facts, their own DATABASE of "facts." Conservatarianapedimabobber: where discriminating (literally) wingnuts go for the best in factoids!

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2003
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:16pm
Yes, we do know, and it's not McCain! He cares so much about our military, he was against the bill increasing benefits to them! Nice. Support them when they're fighting, but screw them when they come home!

 Rose

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:16pm

< It’s an interesting, but incredibly stupid perception, to equate “patriotism” with having something “taken” from you. What kind of a moron could ever have come up with that? Oh…right…your VP candidate.

>>> I'd not go so far as to call it patriotism, but our tax system was thrown out of whack under Bush; it had been just fine through the Clinton years. The reckless tax cut has helped to put this country in a hell of a bind.

Two points…first, how does it throw our tax system “out of wack” to cut the taxes of the top 5% of Americans who currently pay more than 50% of the taxes…and who will CONTINUE to pay more than 50% of the taxes even after the cuts? If anything, in a fair society, that tax burden should be much more widely spread out.

Second, the tax cuts weren’t reckless, they help stimulate the economy. That’s why, after looking at the evidence, McCain changed his position and decided to make them permanent. I know, you’d like to believe Obama’s socialist rhetoric, but let’s look at his actions instead…just a couple of weeks ago, Obama announced that he would NOT rescind the “Bush tax cuts” when the economy was weak. Now just a little logic and common sense here…why would Obama flip flop on his very loudly touted position unless he knew, and it was a fact, that the tax cuts HELP the economy and that rescinding them would HURT the economy?

< No, I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s “patriotic” to have to bail out greedy banks and financiers or foolish people who bought houses they couldn’t afford. It’s also not “patriotic” to have the government take money from people who work for it and redistribute it to people who don’t. But if you do, feel free to “do your part”…and my “part” too…that will make you REALLY “patriotic.”

>>> There is no doubt many are culpable, bankers, investment firms, some who took out mortgages... but there is a reason Congress is acting quickly, and a reason why they wished this largely done before Asian markets open for Monday.

I doubt any of us like the idea of taxpayer money being on the line. I doubt any of us prefer a 25 percent or higher unemployment rate to the use of taxpayer monies to forestall this.

There are a lot of people saying a lot of things about this bail out. Many seem to think it’s a bad idea and that the government is making it sound a lot worse than it is to make people afraid and more agreeable to the “package.” I’m not an expert, but frankly, neither are the people who are crafting the bail out, so I’m skeptical but there appears to be little I can do but watch.

>>> What has to happen is something that has been an anathema to many on the right - increased regulation. The right has to recognise there is in fact a role for what it loves to deride as 'big government.' Regulations are generally passed after we learn a lesson, and that is why they were there to begin with... but the right wished these things to be taken out of the way, and some things were. Now we get the benefit of turning our backs on history.

Thanks for the liberal talking points. This was not a failure of a free market or deregulation. It was the result of a liberal policy, pressed and defended by Democrats, to make it easier for minorities and the poor to buy houses. They applied pressure to financial institutions to support this policy, foolishly believing that the housing bubble would never burst. Needless to say…it did. Both the Bush administration and McCain saw the potential danger years ago and sought additional REGULATION to address them, but they were rebuffed by the Democrats who said…

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

>>> I'd also suggest none of us are happy with how either party handles finances in Washington. Both are culpable here, Democrats from say... 70s to 93, Republicans from there to 06, with the latter running up the biggest deficits, but Democrats putting in place the biggest ongoing programmes.

Let’s kill them all. ; )

>>> This nation has to operate in a more lean way - that means our current health care system has to be chucked, it means Congress and the president has to commit to a balanced budget within the next president's term (which also means goodbye to Iraq, for all the other arguments that can be made on both sides, we simply cannot afford this war.) And it means rebuilding our tax code.

Right…er…wrong…er…if you’re looking for a more “lean” government, then you have to vote for McCain who wants to cut spending, compared to Obama who wants to INCREASE spending $800 BILLION annually.

If you want a balanced budget you have to vote for McCain who has promised to balance the budget while Obama has only promised to expand it with increased spending and new socialist programs.

As for the war spending…it is vital that we succeed in Iraq, both for national perception and national security. McCain is committed to our success, while Obama is committed to our failure, and has shown poor judgment at every turn. Obama also isn’t suggesting that we pull out and save ourselves the money…he only wants to transfer the spending from Iraq to Afghanistan, saving the American taxpayer not a cent.

And on another, but related, note…I certainly hope you’re not naïve enough to believe that the US is “leaving” Iraq anytime in the near future. We are currently building multi-Billion dollar “temporary” military bases in Iraq which we will occupy, as we’ve done throughout the world, for many, many decades to come. McCain, speaking from experience, was exactly right…we will, in all likelihood, have a presence in Iraq for the next hundred years.

Right now, our healthcare system (medicare excluded) is privatized and very expensive. The immigration problem has a lot to do with this increasing expense but we can address that another day. McCain wants to give you a tax cut so that you can afford to purchase the insurance you want. Is this a perfect system…no…but Obama wants the government to socialize medicine. One only has to look at foreign models, or even our own HMOs to see the kind of care we can look forward to.

And as for rebuilding our tax code…that’s fine with me. The top 5% of wage earners pay more than 50% of the taxes. I’m quite ready to the rest of America to do their “patriotic” duty and pay their share of the tax burden.

>>> I'm not proposing radical changes in the form of taxation, that is for another time. I'm proposing we review each and every deduction to see if it makes sense in terms of what it encourages. We also need to look at new deductions if they make sense to what we wish to accomplish and where we wish to go as a society. And we will need to up social security rates, including eliminating the upward cap, exempting the self employed from this, or even altogether providing they put the equivalent of 7.5% or what the new rate will be into an account of their own.

In other words, you want to tax the people who are already paying ten times their “share” of the taxes, so they can pay even more to cover the Social Security for the 40% of Americans who don’t pay taxes?

>>> Obama is hardly a socialist. Using this term with regard to anyone other than Bernie Sanders is silly. America is hardly a nation anywhere near socialism. Nothing Obama proposes takes us anywhere near socialism. If we are having a serious discussion, we need to chuck commies and socialists oh my talk.

Sorry, but you’ll need more than “because I say so” to back up that statement. Why don’t you delineate Obama’s tax and healthcare policies and show us how they aren’t socialist? It should be easy if they aren’t.

< If Obama wants to limit his tax increases to those two guys then I’m all for it.

>>> I just ran my income through the calculator at this site: http://www.electiontaxes.com/ I come out ahead by $500 or so under Obama, not that I'm for changing my taxes.

You do realize that the “tax break” isn’t a check that’s coming in the mail, don’t you? It means that you “might” see your paycheck grow an extra $40-$60 bucks a month. My, oh, my…whatever shall we do with this boon? Buy a computer? Take a vacation? I know, let’s put the kids through college.

Of course, with Obama sticking it to corporations and small businesses to pay for his socialist programs and income re-distribution, the income you’re getting that tax break on is likely to dwindle, if your job isn’t eliminated altogether by corporate downsizing or relocation to a foreign country. Yay!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:18pm

I am VERY disappointed the manner in which McCain refers to his status during the war. You will find that most of us who were there simply prefer not to talk about it. Too many painful memories. And, far too many sleepless nights as we subconciously recall memories of the events we were a part of.


McCain riding the wave of being a hero totally turned me against him. He feels as though he is ready to be Commander In Chief because he spent most of his war years in the Hanoi Hilton selling out his country and service which resulted in the loss of many fellow servicemen... sorry, I don't think he is any more qualified to be the Commander In Chief that Bugs Bunny is!


As I mentioned before, most of those who were POW's were increased in rank when Hanoi prisoners were freed... but, not McCain... there was a reason... and, that is ONE reason I do not see him as qualified to be Commander In Chief OR as President.


You asked how I felt... that's MY opinion.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:18pm
Instead of playing "I'm right - I'm right" why don't you present an substantive argument on some issue and let's see how your "facts" hold up under scrutiny?
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2003
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:19pm
Very well said. Not all POW's are hero's. If he supported the troops so much, he would not have been against the new GI bill.

 Rose

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:23pm

Exactly! He does not want HIS records out there for the public... that would blow his cover wide open!


I know some of what is being held back and, in my opinion, the man is a fraud.


He is banking on the fact that he got most of the records secreted before todays voters could ever find out. I, on the other hand, am 61 and fought in that war and can recall much of what took place. It's no wonder he doesn't want his POW record to become public knowledge.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2008
Sun, 09-28-2008 - 6:24pm

Just out of curiosity - because I am not going to read that whole loooooong post as most of it simply does not interest me at this point in time - why when Johnny Boy changes his mind do you say the following:

"Second, the tax cuts weren’t reckless, they help stimulate the economy. That’s why, after looking at the evidence, McCain changed his position and decided to make them permanent."

But when Obama changes his mind you say:

"I know, you’d like to believe Obama’s socialist rhetoric, but let’s look at his actions instead…just a couple of weeks ago, Obama announced that he would NOT rescind the “Bush tax cuts” when the economy was weak. Now just a little logic and common sense here…why would Obama flip flop on his very loudly touted position"

Are republicans the only ones who are allowed to change their opinions with time and additional information? If so it explains a lot, if not how do you explain all the 'flip flops' Johnny Boy has been making lately?

Just wondering.

Pages