U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

PJ, I accept your apology. Meanwhile, here's more astute reasoning for you to dismiss, since it doesn't fit into your narrative:

Let's get something straight: Anytime race is THE topic du jour in the campaign, it's a bad day for Obama. Period. There are a lot of voters out there who don't want to have their vote judged through the prism of race. (If somehow a swing voter in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan is made to feel that voting against Obama will make them a racist, they'll be resentful.) While today's papers are filled with "who played the race card first?" allegations between the two campaigns, know this fact: The Obama campaign doesn't want the race issue to become an overarching theme of the campaign. [...]

When the McCain folks hit “Send” on that Rick Davis email at 11:46 am ET charging the Obama campaign with playing the race card, what it did was knock Obama’s message of the day -- hitting McCain on Exxon’s quarterly profits -- off the political front burner. (After all, what are we talking about today? Exxon? Or race?) And in a way, it appears that the larger strategy behind the negative ads, Britney and Paris, Landstuhl, etc., is to knock Obama off his message of the day and keep him busy responding to these charges. Compare this week, for instance, with last week, when Obama controlled the message. As the McCain campaign and RNC folks are touting, they've won the week, if you count winning the week as controlling the message (by the way, check out how many views the "Celeb" ad has gotten on YouTube). To use a boxing analogy, McCain is putting Obama into a bear hug -- making it nearly impossible for the Illinois senator to move (in the polls?) or land a punch. But as a big boxing aficionado, McCain also must realize that the fans often don’t take too kindly to boxers who constantly bear hug their opponent. And at some point, the refs break up the bear hugging and the boxing match is forced. But for now, the McCain campaign appears to have a way to knock Obama off message. The only problem for McCain, he's still not on any message of his own, other than "not-Obama."

Here's a new McCain ad tweaking Obama. This is my favorite by far. :laugh4:

If this is Steve, the prince of darkness, Schmidt's doing- I approve. :2thumbsup:

That is the funniest campaign ad yet -- I approve. If Schmidt can keep playing at that level, I will withdraw all of my doubts of the man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Here's a new McCain ad tweaking Obama. This is my favorite by far. :laugh4:

If this is Steve, the prince of darkness, Schmidt's doing- I approve. :2thumbsup:

---

:laugh4: That was hilarious :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

How do you not understand the agenda of MoveOn.org at its followers. The change they want is not in line with the mainstream of the people. People always want change - but it does not necessarily fall in line with MoveOn.org idea of change.

---

Seeing that MoveOn supports Obama, and it looks like more people support him, they seem the same to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You do understand what Policy means do you not? Legislation is something that the President does to meet his policy goals. Presidential policy does not equate to new laws passed by the congress. If you do not have a basic understanding of how the different branches work and how presidential policy is implemented - you really can not argue the issue with me.

---

So wouldn't there plans be there policies, I think so. You are still avoiding my original question of what more detail do you want? You can see the candidates policies on there web sites. The was those policies are implemented IS by passing laws and regulation. If you don't think so explain it to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually its been about both. And yes its a weakness of Obama's. There is a specific reason why Obama has not agreed to the number of debates put forth by McCain, and there is a reason why the dates have not been agreed upon concerning the current agreed upon debates. In fact it changes several times a month depending on what news source you pull concerning the debate issue. Sorry that you don't understand that point - but then again I am not favoring either candidate over the other at this time based upon debate points - as stated before it only a tell for me. Now if Obama seriousily wants to convince me to vote for him he is going to have to show that he is all about change and is not the typical politician - because I have had enough of them. Currently Obama is only showing that he is the typical politician - changing his stance and his policies toward the center so he can convince more voters to vote for him. However we have not seen any major substance from either candidate either now have we.

---

So what is that specific reason, Obama's scared. I doubt it. More like he does not what to share his spot light with McCain more then a few times. McCain is good at town halls, he is a likable guy. Obama is no dope. He does hold town halls, and held his own VS. Clinton.

I highly doubt you are as independent as you claim, as I doubt you would know substance if it jumped up and bit you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Are you so sure about that? Speech writers write what is told to them by the candidate - and the campaign staff. Does that necessarily equate to the true plans. I very well remember Bush Sr. running on the campaign promise not to raise taxes - guess what he did after he got into office.....

---

Well since you can see the plans online and so far they are the same as the speeches, I'm sure. Oh and what Bush did was called lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then you are argueing a false postion - since I said it was one of the critiria I use when looking at the candidates. Debates are indeed important to the process. Far more then your willing to admit to.

---

No I was making a point, if I had wanted to argue a false potions I would not have admitted that you were not claiming that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then it seems you have a fundmental problem in understanding what a presidential debate actually accomplishes. Now then if you want to go on a about speeches and interviews - why are you against town hall debates if you like interviews? Or are you only talking about structure interviews were the questions are known and approved beforehand by the campaign?

I want free interaction - not controlled events when candidates discuss issues.

---

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said I preferred structured debates controlled by a moderator, to town hall style. Town halls can be dominated by persons with stronger personalities. That does not mean that person is correct.

No I was not talking about scripted Interviews. Interview eliminate what I just spoke of. I want to hear what the candidates have to say in a point counter point debate, not an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You might want to read a bit of history

---

See, you are the one who made the claim that when a single party controls everything it is a disaster. So the burden of proof is on you. So were is it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Depends on what you think was a disaster - Somilia for one, and a few other exambles one can find if they do a bit of reading.

---

Somilia could be one, but since I don't see how a difference in congress would have changed anything since the president is commander and chief it is not realy a good example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The budget has not been balanced for a long time there - the two current wars we are in - only highlight the issue - but they are not the sole cause of the issue.

---

....and I never said they were the sole issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Nice attempt but you fail once again - the war is a cost, pork requires something hidden within the bill itself - for instance the last Iraq spending bill contained both funds for the war, and guess what true pork.

It seems you have a basic misunderstanding of what pork spending is all about. THe Farm bill is a good examble of a bill that contains lots of pork also.

---

Now it is you that is failing. I never stated that the war was pork. I asked you to tell me what pork you are talking about. What is the pork on the farm bill. Again you are the one making the claim, I'm asking for you to give specific examples. So what is the pork in the farm bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Which lowers both parties to the same level - and it completely disgusts me that both decided to go that way. Mickey Mouse is becoming a better and better candidate every day.

---

So Obama saying that the people or groups that oppose him might bring up his race lowers him. At best he ends up wrong if they do not bring it up.

Over all Red you seem to be side stepping direct question I'm asking, and FAILing to provide and information to support your claims. I hope in your next post you do more then say "your wrong, go read".

As amusing as that "Messiah" ad was, it's worth pointing out that while it's 100% funny, it's not 100% accurate:

It should be noted, the McCain camp took at least two quotes from Obama out of context. It uses one controversial remark made by Obama that popped up earlier this week, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." A Democratic source later told multiple news outlets that, in context, Obama wasn't speaking about himself but about America generally -- the source quoted Obama as having also said, "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol.'" It's fairly obvious that Obama was joking in another similar quote used in the video.

And yes, Xiahou, Steve Schmidt seems like the kind of guy you'd develop a Republican man-crush on.

The motor behind his operation now is Steve Schmidt, the shaven-headed strategist who earned his bones running Karl Rove's war room in 2004, Frenchifying and de-war-heroizing John Kerry. What Schmidt and his associates have apparently concluded is that McCain's weaknesses -- on the election's most salient issues and as a candidate -- are so pronounced and Obama's vulnerabilities so glaring that the low road is their guy's best, and maybe only, route to the White House. They've concluded, in other words, that even if McCain may not be able to win the election in any affirmative sense, he might still wind up behind the big desk if he and his people can strip the bark off Obama with sufficiently vicious force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Seeing that MoveOn supports Obama, and it looks like more people support him, they seem the same to me.

---

Then I suggest you research MoveOn.org a bit more. There agenda is not just about change - but a specific type of change. And that is different then the average american's desire for change in the government.

Quote:

---

So wouldn't there plans be there policies, I think so. You are still avoiding my original question of what more detail do you want? You can see the candidates policies on there web sites. The was those policies are implemented IS by passing laws and regulation. If you don't think so explain it to me.

---

What detail is in the websites - they consist of broad strokes of idea's. No substance about how the candidate desires to pursue the implenation of the idea. It's all fine for the primary races - but in the presidential election I expect more detail on what direction and how that direction is going to be done.

Quote:

---

So what is that specific reason, Obama's scared. I doubt it. More like he does not what to share his spot light with McCain more then a few times. McCain is good at town halls, he is a likable guy. Obama is no dope. He does hold town halls, and held his own VS. Clinton.

---

Did I say scared? I said he had a reason - never claimed to know the reason just that there is one. Now your hinting to a personality flaw with the candidate that demonstrates that he is concerned about maintaining his image - not discussing his policy. Another factor that we have had more then enough of in the highest office.

Quote:

---

I highly doubt you are as independent as you claim, as I doubt you would know substance if it jumped up and bit you.

---

Oh a personal attack - how interesting. Care to guess my voting record? I vote Democrate in all local elections because I agree with social policies at the community level. I vote a mix based upon the candidates presented for state elections. All depends on how well I agree with their stances. And in national elections I concentrate on who I believe will do the least damage to the country in both elected branches. So before you attempt such an arguement you better understand something about politics and a persons philisophy. A Constitutionist closest describes my mindset, which makes me more independent then you seem to be. And your other comment demonstrates that you have a base misunderstanding of government policy and how it works. To bad you have demonstrated how un-intellegent you truely are. Now do you want to continue with this type of exchange feel free, I am more then game.

Quote:

---

Well since you can see the plans online and so far they are the same as the speeches, I'm sure. Oh and what Bush did was called lying.

---

And it cost him his job now didnt it? Now again neither contain enough detail to demonstrate how the man plans to accomplish his objectives. This is the same folly that Bush Sr. did that you state means he lied. But you don't see the lack of detail as an issue for Obama. I frankly see it as an issue that both candidates have. Poor details in their plans - just broad strokes that demonstrate neither candidate is much better then the other.

Quote:

---

No I was making a point, if I had wanted to argue a false potions I would not have admitted that you were not claiming that.

---

Practicing duplicty are you?

Quote:

---

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said I preferred structured debates controlled by a moderator, to town hall style. Town halls can be dominated by persons with stronger personalities. That does not mean that person is correct.

---

Careful now you about to committ a serious error in your arguement providing an arguement that demonstrates Obama is more controled by his handlers then McCain. Leadership is about being able to make a decision, its not always the right decision, but sometimes it requires strength to make a decision. I have seen both types of interviews - the stronger personalities always dominate the debate. So this arguement seems a bit weak for a desire not to do town hall styles. The main difference between the two types of debates is that the candidate does not get informed before what the questions will be. There is some time limit and structure differences - but the benefit of a town hall far exceeds the problems. Why are you scared of the average citizen being able to ask questions of his future president?

Quote:

---

No I was not talking about scripted Interviews. Interview eliminate what I just spoke of. I want to hear what the candidates have to say in a point counter point debate, not an argument.

---

Town Hall debates can function just as well in that regard. If the candidate is a hot head - I want to see it in the town hall debate. If he can not control his arguement style to a logical postion then I desire to know that weakness. So far your arguement seems to be about controlled structure of what the candidate presents - not what the people need to understand about the candidate's positions.

Quote:

---

See, you are the one who made the claim that when a single party controls everything it is a disaster. So the burden of proof is on you. So were is it.

---

Is your memory that short - 2001 to 2006
the first two years of Clinton's adminstration
the carter adminstration.

Come now understand the politics of having both parties control the elective branches.

Quote:

---

Somilia could be one, but since I don't see how a difference in congress would have changed anything since the president is commander and chief it is not realy a good example.

---

Oh congress could have changed quite a bit in regards to it. Just like congress could of done quite a bit to prevent the invasion of Iraq.

Quote:

---

....and I never said they were the sole issue.

---

Good - so you agree that the budget has not been balanced for many years now - regardless of which party is in power in the whitehouse or congress.

Quote:

---

Now it is you that is failing. I never stated that the war was pork. I asked you to tell me what pork you are talking about. What is the pork on the farm bill. Again you are the one making the claim, I'm asking for you to give specific examples. So what is the pork in the farm bill?

---

Okay fair enough the way you stated your question was off. Pork is simple - any rider placed into the bill that does not support the stated purpose of the bill. Simple enough to explain. Now what is pork - in 2007's war spending bill the congress added about $5 billion to provide releif to Kansas Farmers because of the extreme conditions that ruined crops during the winter/early spring. Now the farm bill contains even more pork in it.

Quote:

---

So Obama saying that the people or groups that oppose him might bring up his race lowers him. At best he ends up wrong if they do not bring it up.

---

as before both candidates are not doing a very good job of address issues.

Quote:

---

Over all Red you seem to be side stepping direct question I'm asking, and FAILing to provide and information to support your claims. I hope in your next post you do more then say "your wrong, go read".

---

No - I want you to actually read the bills and the constitution. If I told you then you will not educate yourself on the issue. So if you want details I suggest you provide more detail yourself, since you still have not provide details concerning how MoveOn.org and the American people's desire for change are the same thing.

So be careful of calling the Kettle black if your committing the same error.

I hope McCain picks Palin for VP ASAP. Who agree's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I hope McCain picks Palin for VP ASAP. Who agree's?

---

You don't want Mitt for vp?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then I suggest you research MoveOn.org a bit more. There agenda is not just about change - but a specific type of change. And that is different then the average american's desire for change in the government.

---

You are look at it in much more detail then I am. All I was getting at was both are for change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

What detail is in the websites - they consist of broad strokes of idea's. No substance about how the candidate desires to pursue the implenation of the idea. It's all fine for the primary races - but in the presidential election I expect more detail on what direction and how that direction is going to be done.

---

Now see, I was under the impression you had read there plans. Here is part of Obama's health care plan.

# Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

Now I ask you once again, what more detail would you like? If you say "how will it be implemented" then the answer would be government regulations, and laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Did I say scared? I said he had a reason - never claimed to know the reason just that there is one. Now your hinting to a personality flaw with the candidate that demonstrates that he is concerned about maintaining his image - not discussing his policy. Another factor that we have had more then enough of in the highest office.

---

No you did not, I was asking if that was the reason. So I guess if you don't know the reason why the dates have been rejected it's really only a guess that it has anything to do with Obama not wanting to debate McCain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh a personal attack - how interesting. Care to guess my voting record? I vote Democrate in all local elections because I agree with social policies at the community level. I vote a mix based upon the candidates presented for state elections. All depends on how well I agree with their stances. And in national elections I concentrate on who I believe will do the least damage to the country in both elected branches. So before you attempt such an arguement you better understand something about politics and a persons philisophy. A Constitutionist closest describes my mindset, which makes me more independent then you seem to be. And your other comment demonstrates that you have a base misunderstanding of government policy and how it works. To bad you have demonstrated how un-intellegent you truely are. Now do you want to continue with this type of exchange feel free, I am more then game.

---

I really don't care about your claimed voting record, and you are most likely more independent then me. I can't remember the last time I voted for a Republican candidate.

Now if 'm so un-intelligent why don't you explain how policies are implemented if not by regulations and laws? I believe this is the second time I asked this question, now you would not dodge it again would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And it cost him his job now didnt it? Now again neither contain enough detail to demonstrate how the man plans to accomplish his objectives. This is the same folly that Bush Sr. did that you state means he lied. But you don't see the lack of detail as an issue for Obama. I frankly see it as an issue that both candidates have. Poor details in their plans - just broad strokes that demonstrate neither candidate is much better then the other.

---

I don't see a lack of detail from ether candidate. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what more detail you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Practicing duplicty are you?

---

No, I was just making a point, please try to follow along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Careful now you about to committ a serious error in your arguement providing an arguement that demonstrates Obama is more controled by his handlers then McCain. Leadership is about being able to make a decision, its not always the right decision, but sometimes it requires strength to make a decision. I have seen both types of interviews - the stronger personalities always dominate the debate. So this arguement seems a bit weak for a desire not to do town hall styles. The main difference between the two types of debates is that the candidate does not get informed before what the questions will be. There is some time limit and structure differences - but the benefit of a town hall far exceeds the problems. Why are you scared of the average citizen being able to ask questions of his future president?

---

I have said that I want to see debates, but I prefer a more classic style of debate over town halls. That does not mean I would not be interested in see at least on town hall between Obama and McCain. Now from may comments that the stronger personality will sometimes dominate a town hall debate means Obama is under more control. Now f you put just about anyone in an open forum like a town hall with Bill O' he will dominate. That does not mean he is right, just that he can yell louder.

So, I want to see debates between the two. At least one should be a town hall. I see now reason why we need 10 town halls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Town Hall debates can function just as well in that regard. If the candidate is a hot head - I want to see it in the town hall debate. If he can not control his arguement style to a logical postion then I desire to know that weakness. So far your arguement seems to be about controlled structure of what the candidate presents - not what the people need to understand about the candidate's positions.

---

So what a candidate presents does not present there positions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Is your memory that short - 2001 to 2006
the first two years of Clinton's adminstration
the carter adminstration.

Come now understand the politics of having both parties control the elective branches.

Oh congress could have changed quite a bit in regards to it. Just like congress could of done quite a bit to prevent the invasion of Iraq.

---

Now what would that have been? The president is the commander of the military he does not need permission from congress to deploy troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Good - so you agree that the budget has not been balanced for many years now - regardless of which party is in power in the whitehouse or congress.

---

Yes we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Okay fair enough the way you stated your question was off. Pork is simple - any rider placed into the bill that does not support the stated purpose of the bill. Simple enough to explain. Now what is pork - in 2007's war spending bill the congress added about $5 billion to provide releif to Kansas Farmers because of the extreme conditions that ruined crops during the winter/early spring. Now the farm bill contains even more pork in it.

---

I understand what pork is, I asked what was the pork in the farm bill.

Oh, do you think that the farmers of Kansas did not deserve government help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

as before both candidates are not doing a very good job of address issues.

---

No McCain is not doing a good job, he is to busy attacking Obama. Obama addresses the issues every time he speaks. You should know that since I'm sure you are listen to the speeches since you agree that debates are not the sole way of picking a president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

No - I want you to actually read the bills and the constitution. If I told you then you will not educate yourself on the issue. So if you want details I suggest you provide more detail yourself, since you still have not provide details concerning how MoveOn.org and the American people's desire for change are the same thing.

---

You can't know if I have read them or not. If I have do you think I would come back here and provide support for your arguments. Since you are making the claims, it is up to you to provide support for them. If you can't or won't then you lose the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So be careful of calling the Kettle black if your committing the same error.

---

That is way I'm so lucky that I addressed this at the beginning.

Now I hope you answer the questions I asked, sidestepping is so un-becoming.

Guys, Obama and McCain are settling it the old fashioned way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Guys, Obama and McCain are settling it the old fashioned way.

---

Funny, is that McCain's Mighty McHammer, and Obama's Obamachucks?

Quote:

---

Obama addresses the issues every time he speaks.

---

I'm sorry, but that can only be met with a snort of laughter.

Obama's been focusing on change and hope, and not emphasizing his liberal agenda.

Quote:

---

Now I ask you once again, what more detail would you like? If you say "how will it be implemented" then the answer would be government regulations, and laws.

---

Indeed - of which there don't seem to be any. It's nice to say things like easy enrollment and simplified paperwork (which is, of course, what the government is known for), but something else entirely to get down to the nitty-gritty of the exact wording.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Obama's been focusing on change and hope, and not emphasizing his liberal agenda.

---

McCain has been focussing on his military record, and not emphasising his conservative agenda.

Well, considering how national security is considered his strength and pretty much the only thing conservatives actually like about him, I'd say it's a smart move on his part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm sorry, but that can only be met with a snort of laughter.

Obama's been focusing on change and hope, and not emphasizing his liberal agenda.

---

So when Obama was in Orlando today and he was speaking about the economy he was not addressing an issue? He has also spoken about health care, that is not one of the major issues of this election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Indeed - of which there don't seem to be any. It's nice to say things like easy enrollment and simplified paperwork (which is, of course, what the government is known for), but something else entirely to get down to the nitty-gritty of the exact wording.

CR

---

Ok, the candidates could draft proposed regulations and put them out. Do you really think that is needed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

McCain has been focussing on his military record, and not emphasising his conservative agenda.

---

Never said he wasn't. But he's less focused on nebulous stuff like 'change' and 'hope'.

Quote:

---

So when Obama was in Orlando today and he was speaking about the economy he was not addressing an issue? He has also spoken about health care, that is not one of the major issues of this election?

---

Having just skimmed the speech, he's talking about the issues in platitudes of change, not really addressing the issues. He's got a laundry list of complaints and promises his 'change' will fix things.

Quote:

---

Ok, the candidates could draft proposed regulations and put them out. Do you really think that is needed?

---

It'd certainly be better.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by makaikhaan

You don't want Mitt for vp?

---

I wanted Mitt for President, but it was not to be. I love that guy, but I really wanted a female in the number 2 slot. 2 males may look like the past - and that is exactly where mccain doesn't need any help. He needs to set himself apart from the tickets of the past so that he can look like a viable alternative to Obama's future. If he picks an incredibly inteligent woman with solid conservative credentials, a gorgeous personality and style - he can create that alternative more effectively. If he picks a female first he may have the upper hand. Romney is my number 2 pick for VP but my number 1 for top slot. Karl Rove continues to say that he would pick Romney if it were his choice.

Jindal is number 3, but the republicans have, for better of worse, the votes of racists in this election. Jindal may get a small number of voters to say "to hell with it - if we are gonna get a "black" no matter how we vote, we may as well go for the one who promises the most stuff and screws the rich" - which would be a gain for the democrats. I'm assuming that this will be a line of thought, but I can't be sure. It would be interesting to see how large a portion of voters are bigots and what their politics play like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

You are look at it in much more detail then I am. All I was getting at was both are for change.

---

Then you are grossly mistaken. MoveOn.Org is after a specific type of change - not just change.

Quote:

---

Now see, I was under the impression you had read there plans. Here is part of Obama's health care plan.

# Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

Now I ask you once again, what more detail would you like? If you say "how will it be implemented" then the answer would be government regulations, and laws.

---

What is the time line, what is the cost, how is it going to be funded, what hurdles does he forsee in implemation of the plan. Again what are the details - that is just a broad stroke plan. So I think your just naive enough to think that this is a plan - however this is not a plan - plans have details in them

Quote:

---

No you did not, I was asking if that was the reason. So I guess if you don't know the reason why the dates have been rejected it's really only a guess that it has anything to do with Obama not wanting to debate McCain.

---

So we will save this for latter - since you have demonstrated a base misunderstanding of my point because of your eagerness to defend a candidate that I have not attacked - only questioned. As a citizen I have every right to question the candidate's ability to lead the nation. So are you attempting to claim a citizen does not have the right to question the candidate's ability to actualy lead the nation, because his political agenda does not have details in it?

Quote:

---

I really don't care about your claimed voting record, and you are most likely more independent then me. I can't remember the last time I voted for a Republican candidate.

---

So again we determine that you like to make cheap shots because someone disagrees with your stated postion.

Quote:

---

Now if 'm so un-intelligent why don't you explain how policies are implemented if not by regulations and laws? I believe this is the second time I asked this question, now you would not dodge it again would you?

---

Hmm you should of watch the school house rock explanation of how things are done in congress - its really rather simple, a measure is brought forth into the congress, and if it has the desired sponsers it can become a bill, and if the bill gets past that process it can then become a piece of legislation. which is what laws and regulations are part of. Now once again how does the above agenda of Mr. Obama meet the criteria of developing a contrete plan on how to bring about his agenda for health care reform for the nation. Because all I see - as with McCains is a broad stroke on what they would like to have happen, nothing about cost, timeline, or any other details in the plan.

Quote:

---

I don't see a lack of detail from ether candidate. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what more detail you want.

---

Alreadly stated several times in the thread, if you do not have the ability to understand what detail means just let me know - its easily looked up in the dictionary.

Quote:

---

No, I was just making a point, please try to follow along.

---

Try making the point - instead of practicing duplicity.

Quote:

---

I have said that I want to see debates, but I prefer a more classic style of debate over town halls. That does not mean I would not be interested in see at least on town hall between Obama and McCain. Now from may comments that the stronger personality will sometimes dominate a town hall debate means Obama is under more control. Now f you put just about anyone in an open forum like a town hall with Bill O' he will dominate. That does not mean he is right, just that he can yell louder.

---

As stated before - I prefer town hall types - and the shouting match type of personality would turn off most voters that watched that type of behavior in a town hall meeting. Only party hacks want that. Citizens who want to legimately look at all candidates want to see how the candidates respond to questions and answer the question.

Quote:

---

So, I want to see debates between the two. At least one should be a town hall. I see now reason why we need 10 town halls.

---

I see the need for one a week from the conventions until the election - of both types, in equal portions so we, the citizens of the nation, can determine of which of the two candidates have the best interests of the country at heart. Mistakes happen, bad decisions will happen, but I want the candidate that has the best interest of the people of the nation at heart to be voted into office. Right now neither candidate seems to present that picture,

Quote:

---

So what a candidate presents does not present there positions?

---

Read it again

Quote:

---

Now what would that have been? The president is the commander of the military he does not need permission from congress to deploy troops.

---

Read the War Powers Act of 1973, he can make certain deployments under specific conditions prior to congressional approval. Guess what every senator and representive I have written to - fail to address that important piece of legislation in their responses to me. Congress has failed terribly in upholding their constitution and legislative duties.

Quote:

---

I understand what pork is, I asked what was the pork in the farm bill.

---

As stated before - read for yourself, its not hard to find it in there once you begin to read it.

Quote:

---

Oh, do you think that the farmers of Kansas did not deserve government help?

---

Not as pork I don't.

Quote:

---

No McCain is not doing a good job, he is to busy attacking Obama. Obama addresses the issues every time he speaks. You should know that since I'm sure you are listen to the speeches since you agree that debates are not the sole way of picking a president.

---

I seem marginal addressment of issues by Obama, I see hope speech being present by Obama, however I don't see much detail in his speeches about how he is going to change the government. Now I might be missing some of the speeches - but from what I have seen and read - I don't see anything that demonstrates that he has a real plan to lead the nation, just the typical message of hope and improvement I would expect of a candidate for office. And yes McCain is indeed much worse in this area then Obama, hince the reason I want to see more debates to force them to address the issues - or resort to personal attacks only. Then I can determine which one I will vote for based upon their behavior

Quote:

---

You can't know if I have read them or not. If I have do you think I would come back here and provide support for your arguments. Since you are making the claims, it is up to you to provide support for them. If you can't or won't then you lose the argument.

---

See I dont care to provide you with the evidence that is easily seen by a little google search of the internet. This is a political discussion about how individuals feel about an issue. Now are you attempting to claim that pork is not included in the Farm Bill? Because that would be very foolish of you, and would demonstrate that you have not read the bill yourself.....

And I dont care if I will or lose the arguement,

Quote:

---

That is way I'm so lucky that I addressed this at the beginning.

Now I hope you answer the questions I asked, sidestepping is so un-becoming.

---

I wish you would do the same thing - so again the Pot calling the Kettle black, you want becoming arguements don't resort to cheap shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then you are grossly mistaken. MoveOn.Org is after a specific type of change - not just change.

---

It is still change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

What is the time line, what is the cost, how is it going to be funded, what hurdles does he forsee in implemation of the plan. Again what are the details - that is just a broad stroke plan. So I think your just naive enough to think that this is a plan - however this is not a plan - plans have details in them

---

That was not very hard was it. The plan in part will be funded by repealing Bush's tax cuts, plus most people will pay for the coverage. Will be depended on how long it take for the bill to get through congress. I will give you that he does not address the hurdles. You do realize that that is only a small part of his plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So we will save this for latter - since you have demonstrated a base misunderstanding of my point because of your eagerness to defend a candidate that I have not attacked - only questioned. As a citizen I have every right to question the candidate's ability to lead the nation. So are you attempting to claim a citizen does not have the right to question the candidate's ability to actualy lead the nation, because his political agenda does not have details in it?

---

You have the right to question, and I have the right to defend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So again we determine that you like to make cheap shots because someone disagrees with your stated postion.

---

So the fact that I don' care about your voting record is another cheap shot, so sorry to offend you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Hmm you should of watch the school house rock explanation of how things are done in congress - its really rather simple, a measure is brought forth into the congress, and if it has the desired sponsers it can become a bill, and if the bill gets past that process it can then become a piece of legislation. which is what laws and regulations are part of. Now once again how does the above agenda of Mr. Obama meet the criteria of developing a contrete plan on how to bring about his agenda for health care reform for the nation. Because all I see - as with McCains is a broad stroke on what they would like to have happen, nothing about cost, timeline, or any other details in the plan.

---

You had stated that you wanted to know how the candidates would implement there plans. I responded with regulations and laws. You then told me I was wrong. Now you say that ultimately laws and regulations are used. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Alreadly stated several times in the thread, if you do not have the ability to understand what detail means just let me know - its easily looked up in the dictionary.

---

I have been asking what details you wanted, it has taken this long for you to tell me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Try making the point - instead of practicing duplicity.

---

I guess your ability to see a point is equal to your ability to spot substance. Oops, sorry I forgot you bruise easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

As stated before - I prefer town hall types - and the shouting match type of personality would turn off most voters that watched that type of behavior in a town hall meeting. Only party hacks want that. Citizens who want to legimately look at all candidates want to see how the candidates respond to questions and answer the question.

---

....and you can get that from both styles of debates. Just because a debate has a moderator, does not mean the candidates will know all the question ahead of time. Plus a moderator has the power to make sure each candidate gets equal time to speak, no letting one dominate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I see the need for one a week from the conventions until the election - of both types, in equal portions so we, the citizens of the nation, can determine of which of the two candidates have the best interests of the country at heart. Mistakes happen, bad decisions will happen, but I want the candidate that has the best interest of the people of the nation at heart to be voted into office. Right now neither candidate seems to present that picture,

---

A good debater can argue a point even if he does not believe it, so I don't see how you or any one will see who has the best interest of this country at heart. But is that even a question? Don't you think that both candidates have made their plans because they feel that is what is best. If not what possible agenda do they have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Read it again

---

Ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So far your arguement seems to be about controlled structure of what the candidate presents - not what the people need to understand about the candidate's positions.

---

I still don't see how what a candidate presents is different than what his position is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Read the War Powers Act of 1973, he can make certain deployments under specific conditions prior to congressional approval. Guess what every senator and representive I have written to - fail to address that important piece of legislation in their responses to me. Congress has failed terribly in upholding their constitution and legislative duties.

---

The president may deploy troops for 60 days before needing a declaration of war from congress. Yes congress has not done a good job of using this, of course after 60 days. That is a enough time to get deep enough into a situation that it would be hard to just pull out. This still does not provide any proof that when on party controls both the electoral branch and the congress it leads to disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

As stated before - read for yourself, its not hard to find it in there once you begin to read it.
Not as pork I don't.

---

Not all pork is bad. Passing the relief as part of the defense bill simple saved time.

Now as far as the farm bill would some of the pork you are talking about be the Food Stamp Program?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I seem marginal addressment of issues by Obama, I see hope speech being present by Obama, however I don't see much detail in his speeches about how he is going to change the government. Now I might be missing some of the speeches - but from what I have seen and read - I don't see anything that demonstrates that he has a real plan to lead the nation, just the typical message of hope and improvement I would expect of a candidate for office. And yes McCain is indeed much worse in this area then Obama, hince the reason I want to see more debates to force them to address the issues - or resort to personal attacks only. Then I can determine which one I will vote for based upon their behavior

---

Well I have to say you are not listen to the speeches and want a level of detail that at this point is unrealistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

See I dont care to provide you with the evidence that is easily seen by a little google search of the internet. This is a political discussion about how individuals feel about an issue. Now are you attempting to claim that pork is not included in the Farm Bill? Because that would be very foolish of you, and would demonstrate that you have not read the bill yourself.....

---

As I stated not all pork is bad, personally I like baby back ribs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And I dont care if I will or lose the arguement,

---

Then why are you still hear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I wish you would do the same thing - so again the Pot calling the Kettle black, you want becoming arguements don't resort to cheap shots.

---

So what questions of your have I not answered?

Redleg, M52, if we could only harness the energy you're putting into this back-and-forth, we could power a smallish city for a week. Think about it. It's your duty to find a way to capture this brilliant and wasted effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Redleg, M52, if we could only harness the energy you're putting into this back-and-forth, we could power a smallish city for a week. Think about it. It's your duty to find a way to capture this brilliant and wasted effort.

---

We could, but this is more fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

It is still change.

---

However it does not equate to what you stated it did now does it.

Quote:

---

That was not very hard was it. The plan in part will be funded by repealing Bush's tax cuts, plus most people will pay for the coverage. Will be depended on how long it take for the bill to get through congress. I will give you that he does not address the hurdles. You do realize that that is only a small part of his plan.

---

The problem is that no-one knows that, Your making an assumption on what his plan might be, I want to see what he says about it - not what others think it might be. To bad you didnt read it the first time I said it either. Its easy to find out what details mean - all it requires is looking it up in the dictionary.

Quote:

---

You have the right to question, and I have the right to defend.

---

you have the right to voice your opinion. Obama has to provide the answers to the questions - not you. Especially given that I have not attacked Obama, just questioned his political plans for the nation. So it seems you have become overly defensive for nothing. Simple fact is I am not against Obama, but neither am I for him at this time. He simply has not provided enough information for me to make a decision concerning his run for office, in fact your attempts have demonstrated how weak some of his positions truely are. So all your attempts at being defensive are for not. However you have demonstrated one of the fundmental flaws of the democratic party during election time. (and yes the Republicans have the same flaws to.)

Quote:

---

So the fact that I don' care about your voting record is another cheap shot, so sorry to offend you.

---

Actually that wasnt the cheap shot - try again.

Quote:

---

You had stated that you wanted to know how the candidates would implement there plans. I responded with regulations and laws. You then told me I was wrong. Now you say that ultimately laws and regulations are used. :laugh4:

---

Try again - I said something completely different. So I guess I will make it simple for you - Obama's implentation is the plans and details that he wants written into the bills that have to go through the process to become law. His implenation is what details is he going to put into executive orders, and what if any new governmental departments he wishes to create. Legislation of law and regulations is what Congress does to Fund his plan. Government 101 in school will teach you this if you can find the time to actually seek an education.

Quote:

---

I have been asking what details you wanted, it has taken this long for you to tell me.

---

Nope, its the first time you chose to actually read it - details is a pretty specific comment - all one has to do is look into the dictionary to determine what it means.

Quote:

---

I guess your ability to see a point is equal to your ability to spot substance. Oops, sorry I forgot you bruise easy.

---

Not at all on either case - but since you wish to play that game - I guess I will also

Quote:

---

....and you can get that from both styles of debates. Just because a debate has a moderator, does not mean the candidates will know all the question ahead of time. Plus a moderator has the power to make sure each candidate gets equal time to speak, no letting one dominate.

---

- both types of debates have the opporunity for one individual to dominate.

Quote:

---

A good debater can argue a point even if he does not believe it, so I don't see how you or any one will see who has the best interest of this country at heart. But is that even a question? Don't you think that both candidates have made their plans because they feel that is what is best. If not what possible agenda do they have.

---

and I am not going to enlighten you on how to judge people for yourself - everyone has their own opinion on that subject. So your point here is mote.

Quote:

---

OkI still don't see how what a candidate presents is different than what his position is.

---

Politicians are politicans - they speak to get votes. So until you know what his postion truely is - you dont know for a fact what he is saying is what he will do, or is it just campaign speech. Here is what allowing people to question candidates does when its not a set piece debate or interview process - the candidates don't have prepared speeches or answers available - they have to come from themselves with the answer.

Quote:

---

The president may deploy troops for 60 days before needing a declaration of war from congress. Yes congress has not done a good job of using this, of course after 60 days. That is a enough time to get deep enough into a situation that it would be hard to just pull out. This still does not provide any proof that when on party controls both the electoral branch and the congress it leads to disaster.

---

Actually it does given the screams of Bush Lied to congress. You cant have both ways in that aspect - both parties in power is not good for the nation. No comprise is necessary when both control the elective branches/

It also says something else about the deployment of troops for 60 days also. He can not just deploy troops for any old reason that he feels like doing it for. And then your forgetting the most important part of the Resolution where he has to come to congress to justify his actions - or the plug is pulled on the operation. And there is a time table for that action to.

Quote:

---

Not all pork is bad. Passing the relief as part of the defense bill simple saved time.

---

Incorrect all pork is bad - it is nothing else then a cheat on the system - emergancy spending bills are the correct way to do it and are just as simple to do.

Quote:

---

Now as far as the farm bill would some of the pork you are talking about be the Food Stamp Program?

---

Nope look deeper into it. But since you seemly cant find the legislation itself, pure laziness on your part since a simple google search is all that is required to find the farm bill.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/farmb...d=FARMBILL2008

one should have to explain why the government includes Social Security funding in the Farm Bill.....

But since you were to lazy to do a simple google - and I image you are to lazy to read the complete bill to find all the pork included in it.. Bill Moyers at PBS has a decent write up on the pork and problems with the 2008 Farm bill. THere are others but they are from more consertive postions, Bill actually does a pretty good job of addressing some of the pork in the bill.

Quote:

---

Well I have to say you are not listen to the speeches and want a level of detail that at this point is unrealistic.

---

And you would be incorrect once again - detail is required for many things when candidates are making specific campaign promises.

Quote:

---

As I stated not all pork is bad, personally I like baby back ribs.

---

good for you - to bad you are acting like a pig.....

Quote:

---

Then why are you still hear?

---

Cause I can......

Quote:

---

So what questions of your have I not answered?

---

Several - review the thread....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I hope McCain picks Palin for VP ASAP. Who agree's?

---

Be my guest, just don't complain when the Democrats start pointing out that she is currently under investigation.

Gentlemen,

Whereas it is understood that this subject is likely to provoke much heated debate, there are some posters tripping over the line into personal attacks. Mild so far, but getting increasingly unpleasant.

Unlike the campaigns, here there are rules against being beastly to one another. Let's respect them, and each other.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

However it does not equate to what you stated it did now does it.

---

Yes it does. A majority of people what change, but I bet you would be hard presses to find a consensus within those people of what specific type of change. I in no way meant that a majority of people want the exact same things as MoveOn, just that they want change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The problem is that no-one knows that, Your making an assumption on what his plan might be, I want to see what he says about it - not what others think it might be. To bad you didnt read it the first time I said it either. Its easy to find out what details mean - all it requires is looking it up in the dictionary.

---

You mean about how he will fund it, no the part about the repealing of tax cuts is in there. Now a time line, no he has not given one, so yes that is one more detail he could put in.

Now me looking up "detail" in the dictionary would not have told me what you wanted to know. Here is one definition "An individual part or item; a particular."

Now what did you say it before?
well here, you stated you wanted to know how he was going to implement and pay for it. This then launched the discussion how things are implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

you have the right to voice your opinion. Obama has to provide the answers to the questions - not you. Especially given that I have not attacked Obama, just questioned his political plans for the nation. So it seems you have become overly defensive for nothing. Simple fact is I am not against Obama, but neither am I for him at this time. He simply has not provided enough information for me to make a decision concerning his run for office, in fact your attempts have demonstrated how weak some of his positions truely are. So all your attempts at being defensive are for not. However you have demonstrated one of the fundmental flaws of the democratic party during election time. (and yes the Republicans have the same flaws to.)

---

He has not provided enough for you. Now explain to me how I have shown his positions to be weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually that wasnt the cheap shot - try again.

---

No - it is to easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Try again - I said something completely different. So I guess I will make it simple for you - Obama's implentation is the plans and details that he wants written into the bills that have to go through the process to become law. His implenation is what details is he going to put into executive orders, and what if any new governmental departments he wishes to create. Legislation of law and regulations is what Congress does to Fund his plan. Government 101 in school will teach you this if you can find the time to actually seek an education.

---

Ok you have said that you wanted to know how he would implement his plan. I responded with laws and regulations, which start as a bill. All you would have to say is you wanted to know how his bills would be written.

Now your assumption the laws and regulations fund plans is incorrect. Laws and regulations are what is used to enact as plan. The president and other write a bill, that then goes through congress and the house were if passed becomes a law. Even new agencies need laws behind them. Now once the law is in place it is up to other government agencies, like EPA, to write regulations on how that law is going to be followed. Then individual states may have to adopt laws and then regulations so that state regulatory agencies can enforce those laws. Funding specifications may be included in the laws or regulations, such as a case of subsidies, most funding will come from funds dedicated the regulatory agencies tasked with enforcing the laws through there regulations.

Now if you feel that is the level of detail you need, fine. It is not accurate to say that without draft bills, or parts of bills, a plan has no substance. Substance can be defined as "the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing" - from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

- both types of debates have the opporunity for one individual to dominate.

---

Yes, one by making better points and rebutting the points of your opponent and the other by talking more and louder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

and I am not going to enlighten you on how to judge people for yourself - everyone has their own opinion on that subject. So your point here is mote.

---

Nor would I want YOU to. My point was far from moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Politicians are politicans - they speak to get votes. So until you know what his postion truely is - you dont know for a fact what he is saying is what he will do, or is it just campaign speech. Here is what allowing people to question candidates does when its not a set piece debate or interview process - the candidates don't have prepared speeches or answers available - they have to come from themselves with the answer.

---

The candidates know what their plans are. I doubt most politicians will forget what they have spoke about before and then say something total different in a debate. It is not like the speech writer get no impute from the candidates, and the candidates do not go out and just riddle off a speech without reading it first.

If you feel that the candidates are not being honest in there speeches and plans, why would you even think about voting for one of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually it does given the screams of Bush Lied to congress. You cant have both ways in that aspect - both parties in power is not good for the nation. No comprise is necessary when both control the elective branches/

It also says something else about the deployment of troops for 60 days also. He can not just deploy troops for any old reason that he feels like doing it for. And then your forgetting the most important part of the Resolution where he has to come to congress to justify his actions - or the plug is pulled on the operation. And there is a time table for that action to.

---

Unless the country is under serious attack or serious threat.

Now the US was in Somalia as part of a UN mission. They were sent there by president Bush Sr. under a Dem controlled congress.

So, your point is moot. Do you have any proof the when one party controls the White House and congress it leads to disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Incorrect all pork is bad - it is nothing else then a cheat on the system - emergancy spending bills are the correct way to do it and are just as simple to do.

---

Well that is your opinion, but I don't see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Nope look deeper into it. But since you seemly cant find the legislation itself, pure laziness on your part since a simple google search is all that is required to find the farm bill.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/farmb...d=FARMBILL2008

one should have to explain why the government includes Social Security funding in the Farm Bill.....

---

That is in the bill it self.

PART V--PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY

SEC. 15361. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

To ensure that the assets of the trust funds established under
section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) are not reduced
as a result of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall transfer annually from the general revenues of the Federal
Government to those trust funds the following amounts:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

But since you were to lazy to do a simple google - and I image you are to lazy to read the complete bill to find all the pork included in it.. Bill Moyers at PBS has a decent write up on the pork and problems with the 2008 Farm bill. THere are others but they are from more consertive postions, Bill actually does a pretty good job of addressing some of the pork in the bill.

---

I found were Moyer talks about pork, and were he talks bout the farm bill, but not at the same time.

Back to your original example, the relief funds in the defense bill. The definition of Pork is-The term pork barrel politics refers to government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. So is that relief money really pork, No. Is the social security funds in the farm bill pork, no.

But, by the definition I will take back my position that all pork is not bad, because by this it is. Now by reading the farm bill I can't find any pork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And you would be incorrect once again - detail is required for many things when candidates are making specific campaign promises.

---

No - if I promise you that I will do something it does not mean I have to tell you how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

good for you - to bad you are acting like a pig.....

---

Oink, oink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Several - review the thread....

---

Did, can't find any. You must be wrong.

How are farm subsidies not pork? The only reason for not discontinuing them is to avoid pissing off farmers and their sympathisers. I recall that there were some funds allocated for research in the US farm bill that may be useful, but farm subsidies in the strict sense don't serve any legitimate purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

How are farm subsidies not pork? The only reason for not discontinuing them is to avoid pissing off farmers and their sympathisers. I recall that there were some funds allocated for research in the US farm bill that may be useful, but farm subsidies in the strict sense don't serve any legitimate purpose.

---

They are not because Pork is government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes, normally added by a single politician to a bill. Now whether subsidies serve a purpose is debatable.

I'm not arguing that farm subsidies are right, just that they are not by definition Pork.

It's still shameless clientalism - if I understand the term correctly, pork is the same thing but favouring only your own local constituents.

Quote:

---

Now whether subsidies serve a purpose is debatable.

---

I'd like to see you try. I've never heard or read anyone put up a good argument in favour of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

It's still shameless clientalism - if I understand the term correctly, pork is the same thing but favouring only your own local constituents.

---

Correct, Red and myself are talking about pork, since this is what McCain is saying he is against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

I'd like to see you try. I've never heard or read anyone put up a good argument in favour of them.

---

I will not be trying to defend the subsidies as I really do not think we need then, at least not in their current from.

A quick search does turn up some site like this one in defense of farm subsidies.

I think it could only be defined as pork if there's only one party supporting the benefits and so getting the votes off it, if both partys are doing it then it's more like a big cash give away, of course in defence of the subsidies you could say that most other developed countrys support thier farmers as well, but everyone should just cut subsidies and tarrifs its the people of the third world that lose out most, and so need our charity...

That article puts one good argument that I had forgotten: reliance on foreign imports could make you vulnerable. But in the EU at least we vastly outproduce our own need and overflood the world market. There have been instances where the Neth's helped to set up farms in African countries only to see them being out"competed" by western foods.

The lower food prices: we have a phrase in Dutch "being treated on a cigar from your own box". It's like being forced to pay $10 for a $5 voucher for a local store. Other stores (the farmers from developing countries) might be able to ask as little as $6 for their products but that's still to much since they have no such coercive advantage.
I'm sceptical of the article's assertion that the subsidies lower production costs - I assume that they're scale effects, caused by a few behemoth companies consolidating all the food production. Aside from this being an unwanted phenomenon in itself, consumers would still be better off without the subsidies. They might be forced to pay slightly more for foods but this would be offset by the elimination of the taxes required.

The only downside to axing the European CAP that I can see is that the USA and other western governments might not follow the example, and simply reduces our farmer's ability to compete even more. In such a case tariffs would be the answer, though obviously only against nations that continue to support their own useless farmers.

The only downside to axing the European CAP that I can see is that the USA and other western governments might not follow the example, and simply reduces our farmer's ability to compete even more. In such a case tariffs would be the answer, though obviously only against nations that continue to support their own useless farmers.

The main problem i can see is the lowest earners would be hit hardest but that could be offset by reducing sales tax on basic food items, and it would be a bit more of an impact if only the EU dropped subsidies and other countries continued thier subsidies and tarrifs...

It's so much funnier when they aren't kidding:

Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him – a messiah-like figure, charismatic and glib and seemingly holding all the answers to all the world's questions.

And the Bible says that such a leader will soon make his appearance on the scene. It won't be Barack Obama, but Obama's world tour provided a foretaste of the reception he can expect to receive.

He will probably also stand in some European capital, addressing the people of the world and telling them that he is the one that they have been waiting for. And he can expect as wildly enthusiastic a greeting as Obama got in Berlin.

The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist. And it seems apparent that the world is now ready to make his acquaintance.

-edit-

And as long as we're on Antichrist watch, there's a group that's quite offended by the "One" ad, and I hadn't thought of them -- Christians who do not necessarily support McCain.

At best, this ad implies that those who plan to support Senator Obama are looking for a new savior or a replacement Messiah. But many are reading it even more darkly as an attempt to portray Obama as an anti-Christ figure.

A vote for Senator Obama is a vote for the man we think will make the best President, not for a new Messiah. As Christians, we have one Lord And Savior. Jesus Christ. It is blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

And it is beyond offensive to suggest that Senator Obama is a false Messiah or the anti-Christ himself. How low can we go? It shows the McCain campaign is willing to make a mockery of our faith to feed people's fears. Christians need to reject this out of hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I think it could only be defined as pork if there's only one party supporting the benefits and so getting the votes off it, if both partys are doing it then it's more like a big cash give away, of course in defence of the subsidies you could say that most other developed countrys support thier farmers as well, but everyone should just cut subsidies and tarrifs its the people of the third world that lose out most, and so need our charity...

---

Can you link to statistics for that? I find it hard to believe. When Third World countries cut their tarriffs, everything goes horribly wrong... Sure their GDP rises, but none of that goes to the lowest levels.

Can you link to statistics for that? I find it hard to believe. When Third World countries cut their tarriffs, everything goes horribly wrong... Sure their GDP rises, but none of that goes to the lowest levels.

I was more thinking of the EU US China India Brazil ect. if they cut thier tarrifs agriculture in the poorest countries can compete more effectively in thier markets, im assuming in a tarrif and subsidie free world a third world farmer can produce cheaper than most other farmers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's so much funnier when they aren't kidding:

Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him – a messiah-like figure, charismatic and glib and seemingly holding all the answers to all the world's questions.

And the Bible says that such a leader will soon make his appearance on the scene. It won't be Barack Obama, but Obama's world tour provided a foretaste of the reception he can expect to receive.

He will probably also stand in some European capital, addressing the people of the world and telling them that he is the one that they have been waiting for. And he can expect as wildly enthusiastic a greeting as Obama got in Berlin.

The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist. And it seems apparent that the world is now ready to make his acquaintance.

-edit-

And as long as we're on Antichrist watch, there's a group that's quite offended by the "One" ad, and I hadn't thought of them -- Christians who do not necessarily support McCain.

At best, this ad implies that those who plan to support Senator Obama are looking for a new savior or a replacement Messiah. But many are reading it even more darkly as an attempt to portray Obama as an anti-Christ figure.

A vote for Senator Obama is a vote for the man we think will make the best President, not for a new Messiah. As Christians, we have one Lord And Savior. Jesus Christ. It is blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

And it is beyond offensive to suggest that Senator Obama is a false Messiah or the anti-Christ himself. How low can we go? It shows the McCain campaign is willing to make a mockery of our faith to feed people's fears. Christians need to reject this out of hand.

---

Fundamentalist websites have been saying he is the Anti-Christ for some time. I even have a clerk at work who is not very religious that believes that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Yes it does. A majority of people what change, but I bet you would be hard presses to find a consensus within those people of what specific type of change. I in no way meant that a majority of people want the exact same things as MoveOn, just that they want change.

---

And therefore you have just reasoned out that my point is correct - Moveon.org in no way represents the majority concerning the amount and type of change that the American People want

Quote:

---

You mean about how he will fund it, no the part about the repealing of tax cuts is in there. Now a time line, no he has not given one, so yes that is one more detail he could put in.

Now me looking up "detail" in the dictionary would not have told me what you wanted to know. Here is one definition "An individual part or item; a particular."

Now what did you say it before?
well here, you stated you wanted to know how he was going to implement and pay for it. This then launched the discussion how things are implemented.

---

And you still haven't got it, I am not going to give you a complete answer at any one time, part of the equation is for you to understand how the government works - I alreadly know how it works. Again implementation consists of many things, I have only answered the part that I wish to answer. And yes looking into the dictionary would of told you what detail means, since its easily defined.

Quote:

---

He has not provided enough for you. Now explain to me how I have shown his positions to be weak.

---

Take a look at your arguement and how you present it - you will become self-aware very quickly.

Quote:

---

Ok you have said that you wanted to know how he would implement his plan. I responded with laws and regulations, which start as a bill. All you would have to say is you wanted to know how his bills would be written.

---

So you wish for me to place all my cards on the table - sorry there young man, if you don't know how presidents implement plans you might not have entered into the discussion.

Quote:

---

Now your assumption the laws and regulations fund plans is incorrect. Laws and regulations are what is used to enact as plan. The president and other write a bill, that then goes through congress and the house were if passed becomes a law. Even new agencies need laws behind them. Now once the law is in place it is up to other government agencies, like EPA, to write regulations on how that law is going to be followed. Then individual states may have to adopt laws and then regulations so that state regulatory agencies can enforce those laws. Funding specifications may be included in the laws or regulations, such as a case of subsidies, most funding will come from funds dedicated the regulatory agencies tasked with enforcing the laws through there regulations.

---

Care to guess what congressional funding is called? Give you a hint its considered legislation which is a law or regulation.... For instance what is Title 10, a law, a bill, a regulation, a funding legislation? or is it all four.

Quote:

---

Now if you feel that is the level of detail you need, fine. It is not accurate to say that without draft bills, or parts of bills, a plan has no substance. Substance can be defined as "the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing" - from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1).

---

If a plan has no substance it is a weak plan - that is exactly what I am saying about the current campaign agenda's of both candidates. So again I did not say draft bills or parts of bills - I said how will the man implement the plan. Care to go around in that circle once again.

Quote:

---

Yes, one by making better points and rebutting the points of your opponent and the other by talking more and louder.

---

Which is what both forms of debates allow to happen. Again your postion against town hall debates seems to stem from the desire to keep the average citizen from asking the candidates questions that they can not prepare for. Best kind of question to ask is one the candidate can not have rehearsed.

Quote:

---

Nor would I want YOU to. My point was far from moot.

---

irrevelant and mote is exactly what your point is.

Quote:

---

The candidates know what their plans are. I doubt most politicians will forget what they have spoke about before and then say something total different in a debate. It is not like the speech writer get no impute from the candidates, and the candidates do not go out and just riddle off a speech without reading it first.

---

Actually that has been know to have happened. So be careful in speaking in absolutes when discussing politicans.

Quote:

---

If you feel that the candidates are not being honest in there speeches and plans, why would you even think about voting for one of them?

---

Bingo - hince the comment about Mickey Mouse looking better and better everyday.

Quote:

---

Unless the country is under serious attack or serious threat.

---

Read it again - it mentions that and a few other things.

Quote:

---

Now the US was in Somalia as part of a UN mission. They were sent there by president Bush Sr. under a Dem controlled congress.

---

And what happened under a congress and president controlled by one party.

Quote:

---

So, your point is moot. Do you have any proof the when one party controls the White House and congress it leads to disaster.

---

Oh come on now - the main democratic talking point is the Iraq war and the claim of diaster. Are you that blind?

Quote:

---

Well that is your opinion, but I don't see it.

---

Then care to explain the fact that our government does not have a balanced budget? Pork and riders are one of the reasons for the budget problem.

Quote:

---

That is in the bill it self.

PART V--PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY

SEC. 15361. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

To ensure that the assets of the trust funds established under
section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401) are not reduced
as a result of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall transfer annually from the general revenues of the Federal
Government to those trust funds the following amounts:

---

Again why is it in the bill, why is the government double paying the farmer. For instance all farmers have to pay into the social security fund from the profits of their farms. Why is the government funding the social security fund because of any action of this act? Cloudly language is what that is?

Quote:

---

I found were Moyer talks about pork, and were he talks bout the farm bill, but not at the same time.

---

He does talk about both,

Quote:

---

Back to your original example, the relief funds in the defense bill. The definition of Pork is-The term pork barrel politics refers to government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes. So is that relief money really pork, No. Is the social security funds in the farm bill pork, no.

---

Actually you are incorrect again - got the letter from the Representive to prove it. The relief fund was done to insure farmers in kansas voted for the individuals in congress from their state. So yes it was for political return. And again social security funds in the farm bill represent something else that our government is doing.

Quote:

---

But, by the definition I will take back my position that all pork is not bad, because by this it is. Now by reading the farm bill I can't find any pork.

---

Its there. As stated before most analysis of the bill find pork - different degrees based upon their own analysis but all agree pork is present.

Quote:

---

It's so much funnier when they aren't kidding:

---

Oh come on Lemur thats Lindsey , even by evangelist standards he is nuttier than a sack of almonds .
Has he forgotten he said that the US won't be involved in the anti-christ stuff because he couldn't find America mentioned in the bible or that he said the anti christ was going to be either european or a soviet russian not an American .
Hold on ...maybe he has a point , Obama is really a soviet plant who is going to bring communism to America .:yes: all hail the dark lord who brings the red tide .
I can see McCains team coming up with some good adverts for this
Obama is the unpatriotic non white atheist communist european muslim with cloven feet , horns and the brains of britney spears ....VOTE REPUBLICAN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And therefore you have just reasoned out that my point is correct - Moveon.org in no way represents the majority concerning the amount and type of change that the American People want

---

No they do not represent the type of change, just the need for change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And you still haven't got it, I am not going to give you a complete answer at any one time, part of the equation is for you to understand how the government works - I alreadly know how it works. Again implementation consists of many things, I have only answered the part that I wish to answer. And yes looking into the dictionary would of told you what detail means, since its easily defined.

---

I'm am honored that you are trying to teach me something I already know. I believe you have not given a solid answer because you do not have one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Take a look at your arguement and how you present it - you will become self-aware very quickly.

---

Again, no answer because you don't have one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So you wish for me to place all my cards on the table - sorry there young man, if you don't know how presidents implement plans you might not have entered into the discussion.

---

See I have told you how it is done, you just cannot admit you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Care to guess what congressional funding is called? Give you a hint its considered legislation which is a law or regulation.... For instance what is Title 10, a law, a bill, a regulation, a funding legislation? or is it all four.

---

Title 10 would be a regulation regarding the United States military. Funding for the military is given through the federal budget which is enacted by the passing of appropriation bills. The current one for the military is Public Law 113-116. All funding for the government budget comes from 13 appropriation bills. So you have still failed to prove that I am wrong in stating that a president implements his plans through laws and regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

If a plan has no substance it is a weak plan - that is exactly what I am saying about the current campaign agenda's of both candidates. So again I did not say draft bills or parts of bills - I said how will the man implement the plan. Care to go around in that circle once again.

---

Laws and regulations as I stated before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Which is what both forms of debates allow to happen. Again your postion against town hall debates seems to stem from the desire to keep the average citizen from asking the candidates questions that they can not prepare for. Best kind of question to ask is one the candidate can not have rehearsed.

---

Again a formal debate can involve question from the general public which are not submitted before hand. So your major reason for town halls falls flat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

irrevelant and mote is exactly what your point is.

---

So it is not applicable and a small speck of dust?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually that has been know to have happened. So be careful in speaking in absolutes when discussing politicans.

---

....because using word like doubt and most is speaking in absolutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Bingo - hince the comment about Mickey Mouse looking better and better everyday.

---

Well have fun with the Mouse then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Read it again - it mentions that and a few other things.

---

It mentions a bunch of thing, non which pertain to our discussion below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And what happened under a congress and president controlled by one party.

Oh come on now - the main democratic talking point is the Iraq war and the claim of diaster. Are you that blind?

---

Yes it is, but since I have shown that the military involvement in Somalia was disaster as stated by your self, and your involvement began with a Republican President, and a Democratic congress it seems disasters happen no matter what.

See for you to prove that when control is held by one party it leads to disaster you would have to show that it happens every time, or nearly ever time. The current state of this country could be classified as a disaster, but this is only one time. Then you would also have to show that disasters do not normally happen when a single party is not in control. You have yet to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then care to explain the fact that our government does not have a balanced budget? Pork and riders are one of the reasons for the budget problem.

---

Is that an opinion or do you have any proof of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again why is it in the bill, why is the government double paying the farmer. For instance all farmers have to pay into the social security fund from the profits of their farms. Why is the government funding the social security fund because of any action of this act? Cloudly language is what that is?

---

Perhaps you do not look at regulations very often, I do, everyday at work. It is in there because certain parts of the farm bill will cause less money to go into the social security fund, part of taking less money away from farmers. To compensate for this fund from general revenue are added to the fund. Now way would they do that, easy, because instead pf paying out more subsidies they just reduce the amount of SS payed, and replace that with general revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

He does talk about both,

---

Just not at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually you are incorrect again - got the letter from the Representive to prove it. The relief fund was done to insure farmers in kansas voted for the individuals in congress from their state. So yes it was for political return. And again social security funds in the farm bill represent something else that our government is doing.

---

So it had nothing to do with fact they needed help?

How about you post a copy of that letter, and provide proof that it came from a Representative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Its there. As stated before most analysis of the bill find pork - different degrees based upon their own analysis but all agree pork is present.

---

Again, I don't see it. You will just have to prove me wrong and point it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

No they do not represent the type of change, just the need for change.

---

There you go - then your initial comment about change and Moveon.org was not accurate.

Quote:

---

I'm am honored that you are trying to teach me something I already know. I believe you have gotten given a solid answer because you do not posses one.

See I have told you how it is done, you just cannot admit you are wrong.

---

Wrong again - you have been given solid answers - you just refuse to actually read them.

Quote:

---

Title 10 would be a regulation regarding the United States military. Funding for the military is given through the federal budget which is enacted by the passing of appropriation bills. The current one for the military is Public Law 113-116. All funding for the government budget comes form 13 appropriation bills. So you have still failed to prove that I am wrong in stating that a president implements his plans through laws and regulations.

---

you failed to read the bit about executive orders now didn't you?

Quote:

---

Laws and regulations as stated above.

---

Again forgetting executive orders - I find you arguement faulty.

Quote:

---

Again a formal debate can involve question from the general public which are not submitted before hand. So your major reason for town halls falls flat.

---

Interesting - havent seen a formal debate that uses un-rehearshed questions from citizens. Only prescreened questions by the moderators.

Quote:

---

So it is not applicable and a small speck of dust?

---

its mote.

Quote:

---

....because using word like doubt and most is speaking in absolutes.

---

was refering to a spefic comment

Quote:

---

Well have fun with the Mouse then.

---

used a protest vote before in a presidential election, when neither candidate meant the standards that I wanted in a leader, nor could I determine which one would be the least of two evils. So have fun with that one.

Quote:

---

It mentions a bunch of thing, non which pertain to our discussion below.

---

Sure its pertain to the discussion - are you having problems again?

Quote:

---

Yes it is, but since I have shown that the military involvement in Somalia was disaster as stated by your self, and your involvement began with a Republican President, and a Democratic congress it seems disasters happen no matter what.

---

Correct - never said it didn't. However when one party controls both elective branches its more likely. Hince the democratic talking points concerning the republican controled congress and presidential office, again you can't not claim its a faulty arguement from me, unless your willing to admitted that its a false campaign postion of the democratic party.

Quote:

---

See for you to prove that when control is held by one party it leads to disaster you would have to show that it happens every time, or nearly ever time. The current state of this country could be classified as a disaster, but this is only one time. Then you would also have to show that disasters do not normally happen when a single party is not in control. You have yet to do that.

---

Actually I don't have to show diasters don't happen when the two branches are split. Because simply put mistakes happen. However as stated before one of the big democratic talking points is the diasters of the republican controled congress and the Presidential office. And then there was the alleged diasters during part of the Reagan Adminstration. And a few others.

Quote:

---

Is that your opinion or do you have any proof of that?

---

Everything in this thread has been opinion of one type or another - to put it simply politics is nothing but opinions. Riders and pork spending are errors in how our government operates. Leads to wasteful spending for the sake of political gain.

Quote:

---

Perhaps you do not look at regulations very often, I do, everyday at work. It is in there because certain parts of the farm bill will cause less money to go into the social security fund, part of taking less money away from farmers. To compensate for this fund from general revenue are added to the fund. Now way would they do that, easy, because instead pf paying out more subsidies they just reduce the amount of SS payed, and replace that with general revenue.

---

In otherwords bad spending - and poor budget planning by the government. Now I would classify this as wasteful spending being that the government is allowing the farmers to get away with not paying the same type of taxes as anyother business owner. Subsidies are a bad thing especially when it also goes to corporate farms - not just the family farms. So any bill that provides subsidies should be carefully monitored to insure its not wasting our taxdollars. So while you might not see it as pork - I see it as being at best a bad spending by the government and at worst pork. The farm bill has in it items that all about garnering votes from a specific voting block.

Quote:

---

Just not at the same time.

---

So having difficultly then?

Quote:

---

So it had nothing to do with fact they needed help?

---

As stated before it was a rider on that spending bill - which was done for political purposes - makes it pork. If it was needed they should of done it the right way through an emergency bill.

Quote:

---

How about you post a copy of that letter, and provide proof that it came from a Representative.

---

LOL - careful on attempting to call me a liar, it might come back to bite you on your rear-end. But naw I wont post it yet. So I think I will await your next attempt at being clever....

Quote:

---

Again, I don't see it. You will just have to prove me wrong and point it out.

---

Then that is your opinion - not going to attempt to provide to much additional information if your not willing to actually look for it yourself. As stated many analysis show it as pork, haven't seen a single one that says there is no pork in the farm bill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4134558.story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Can you link to statistics for that? I find it hard to believe. When Third World countries cut their tarriffs, everything goes horribly wrong... Sure their GDP rises, but none of that goes to the lowest levels.

I was more thinking of the EU US China India Brazil ect. if they cut thier tarrifs agriculture in the poorest countries can compete more effectively in thier markets, im assuming in a tarrif and subsidie free world a third world farmer can produce cheaper than most other farmers.

---

"Everything goes horribly wrong"?

Ridiculous. Free trade is perhaps the greatest economic catalyst there is. Were the EU, USA, and other countries to cut tariffs in exchange for third world countries cutting tariffs, the poor in those third world countries would be among the biggest beneficiaries. The cheapness with which they can produce goods is a compelling economic advantage, but one negated by protectionist governments in the west (in the USA, the dems are holding the protectionist banner right now). Sadly, the latest round of talks at Doha saw no gains as some countries wanted others to lower tariffs but didn't want to return the favor themselves.

The anti-trade streak of the dems is one McCain should capitalize on.

Quote:

---

Obama is the unpatriotic non white atheist communist european muslim with cloven feet , horns and the brains of britney spears ....VOTE REPUBLICAN

---

I daresay the last bit would likely be "But can he lead?"

CR

https://img402.imageshack.us/img402/...clippedzp9.jpg

Quote:

---

Free trade is perhaps the greatest economic catalyst there is.

---

So you want McCain to abolish all taxes and all immigration restrictions then ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Were the EU, USA, and other countries to cut tariffs in exchange for third world countries cutting tariffs, the poor in those third world countries would be among the biggest beneficiaries.

---

Yes, I agree. Sweat-shop labourers have a great life now :2thumbsup: What about Dumping? That benefits no one except the corporations in the richest countries.

Whatever, Free Trade isn't something I know enough about to really argue effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The anti-trade streak of the dems is one McCain should capitalize on.

---

Because that will go down sooooo well in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
EDIT: Not to mention Michigan...

Quote:

---

Whatever, Free Trade isn't something I know enough about to really argue effectively.

---

That may be because Free Trade is like the lord of the rings , its a fantasy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

There you go - then your initial comment about change and Moveon.org was not accurate.

---

Last time I will explain this, please follow along. I stated that the majority of people were inline with what MoveOn wanted. Then I clarified that statement in the fact that the majority of people what change and so does MoveOn. The type of change is irrelevant to that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Wrong again - you have been given solid answers - you just refuse to actually read them.

---

No I get inane comments about teaching me or the same statements which I refuted time and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

you failed to read the bit about executive orders now didn't you?

---

Yes you could add them to how a president implements his plans. For the most part that will not be the case. Executive orders are normally given to direct operations, such as when FDR ordered the military to remove Americans of Japanese and German decent form military zone. Only executive orders that are issued pursuant to acts of congress do they carry the weight of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again forgetting executive orders - I find you arguement faulty.

---

The orders are normally used only in certain situations. They can get overturned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Interesting - havent seen a formal debate that uses un-rehearshed questions from citizens. Only prescreened questions by the moderators.

---

Here is two from the Democratic party primary debates.
June 3, 2007 - Manchester, New Hampshire
July 23, 2007 - Charleston, South Carolina

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

its mote.

---

Who needs a dictionary? Mote - a small spec or particle, esp. Dust.

Moot - open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful

Once again you are incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

was refering to a spefic comment

---

The one I used those words, boy we are really reaching there now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

used a protest vote before in a presidential election, when neither candidate meant the standards that I wanted in a leader, nor could I determine which one would be the least of two evils. So have fun with that one.

---

I'm sorry that you are so pessimistic that you believe that our country does not have two decent presidential candidates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Correct - never said it didn't. However when one party controls both elective branches its more likely. Hince the democratic talking points concerning the republican controled congress and presidential office, again you can't not claim its a faulty arguement from me, unless your willing to admitted that its a false campaign postion of the democratic party.

Actually I don't have to show diasters don't happen when the two branches are split. Because simply put mistakes happen. However as stated before one of the big democratic talking points is the diasters of the republican controled congress and the Presidential office. And then there was the balleged diasters during part of the Reagan Adminstration. And a few others.

---

In other words, you cannot backup your statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Everything in this thread has been opinion of one type or another - to put it simply politics is nothing but opinions. Riders and pork spending are errors in how our government operates. Leads to wasteful spending for the sake of political gain.

---

Well you know what they say about opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

In otherwords bad spending - and poor budget planning by the government. Now I would classify this as wasteful spending being that the government is allowing the farmers to get away with not paying the same type of taxes as anyother business owner. Subsidies are a bad thing especially when it also goes to corporate farms - not just the family farms. So any bill that provides subsidies should be carefully monitored to insure its not wasting our taxdollars. So while you might not see it as pork - I see it as being at best a bad spending by the government and at worst pork. The farm bill has in it items that all about garnering votes from a specific voting block.

---

I would agree with you that the farm subsidies are wasteful. Now it seems you fail at arguing. If you claim that there are items in the bill that are there for no reason then to garner votes the burden is on you to provide those. Sort of like how you want the details from the candidates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So having difficultly then?

---

At finding a story that may not exist, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

As stated before it was a rider on that spending bill - which was done for political purposes - makes it pork. If it was needed they should of done it the right way through an emergency bill.

---

Not really, as you have yet to prove that it was solely for political gains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

LOL - careful on attempting to call me a liar, it might come back to bite you on your rear-end. But naw I wont post it yet. So I think I will await your next attempt at being clever....

---

If you make claims and then do not provide proof, you do a good enough job of that yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then that is your opinion - not going to attempt to provide to much additional information if your not willing to actually look for it yourself. As stated many analysis show it as pork, haven't seen a single one that says there is no pork in the farm bill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4134558.story

---

Great you provided an article that has the work Pork in the tag line but then does not mention it again.

Perhaps you should give this up since it does not seem like you have anything new to add. It is almost getting embarrassing.

Post something new, some proof of your claims, something of substance if you want to continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That may be because Free Trade is like the lord of the rings , its a fantasy .

---

What philosophical concept isn't?

I don't believe that many of us on these forums have the scope to condemn or champion Free Trade in the way that we might like to. How many of us are Economists? Of that tiny segment, how many of us are professional Economists? Of that probably non-existent percentage how many of us feel qualified to dictate the correct direction a global economies for all time?

It is interesting to discuss, but I don't believe strongly enough in Free-Trade to dismiss conflicting arguments out of hand. Likewise, I wouldn't condemn the concept as those who pursue it have effected a number of positive changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Last time I will explain this, please follow along. I stated that the majority of people were inline with what MoveOn wanted. Then I clarified that statement in the fact that the majority of people what change and so does MoveOn. The type of change is irrelevant to that point.

---

And again you are mistaken - people wanting change is not inline with what MoveOn wants - MoveOn wants a specific type of change. The type of change is relevant to the initial statement because you claimed people were inline with what MoveOn wants - to different things.

Quote:

---

No I get inane comments about teaching me or the same statements which I refuted time and again.

---

Actually you have been learning - to bad you dont follow.... as for refuting - it seems that is even doubtful given the burdern of proof you wish to have provided.

Quote:

---

Yes you could add them to how a president implements his plans. For the most part that will not be the case. Executive orders are normally given to direct operations, such as when FDR ordered the military to remove Americans of Japanese and German decent form military zone. Only executive orders that are issued pursuant to acts of congress do they carry the weight of law.

---

Explain the executive order that created the Department of Homeland Defense? That congress then backed it up only means what? Sorry your losing your arguement once again.

Quote:

---

The orders are normally used only in certain situations. They can get overturned.

---

Correct but they are part of the implenation process are they not? Again as stated before I want to know how the candidate plans to implement his plan. the process is far more detailed then just going to congress to get legislation to make laws and regulations. It also requires apporiation hearings and many other things. As before you focused on only one aspect without going for the full picture. To bad you didn't see it coming in your eagerness to defend Obama from an attack that was not there,

Quote:

---

Here is two from the Democratic party primary debates.
June 3, 2007 - Manchester, New Hampshire
July 23, 2007 - Charleston, South Carolina

---

You did notice I said pre-screen questions - LOL

Quote:

---

Who needs a dictionary? Mote - a small spec or particle, esp. Dust.

Moot - open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful

---

Again the term I use is mote - a small spec. A nothing, a piece of dust. Your point is mote nothing more then a small speck of dust in the big picture.

Quote:

---

The one I used those words, boy we are really reaching there now.

---

Not at all.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry that you are so pessimistic that you believe that our country does not have two decent presidential candidates.

---

Not pessimistic at all - I have not seen a single thing that convinces me that either candidate is a decent candidate for office. The political party process is broken. I had hope that maybe we would have a decent candidate but both parties shot down the candidates that actually provided the most hope for the nation.

Quote:

---

In other words, you cannot backup your statement.

---

In otherwords it has alreadly been shown, and that all one has to do is look at history to actually see. So again you haven't disproved the opinion at all either.

Quote:

---

Well you know what they say about opinions.

---

Yep - which is why politicans are all full of crap.

Quote:

---

I would agree with you that the farm subsidies are wasteful. Now it seems you fail at arguing. If you claim that there are items in the bill that are there for no reason then to garner votes the burden is on you to provide those. Sort of like how you want the details from the candidates.

---

Burdern of proof has alreadly been established as stated before - professional analysis all agree that the farm bill contains pork. A google search provides amable evidence of that statement. No need for me to go into more detail then the two links alreadly provided. Sorry there party hack - even your own party agrees that there is pork in the farm bill.

Quote:

---

At finding a story that may not exist, yes.

---

It exists.

Quote:

---

Not really, as you have yet to prove that it was solely for political gains.

---

As before its common knowledge in the state.

Quote:

---

If you make claims and then do not provide proof, you do a good enough job of that yourself.

---

Until you can prove an individual is lying you should provide them the benefit of the doubt - at worst there opinion is incorrect, and best they are wrong, politics is primarily about opinion, you have demonstrated once again that you are very foolish. Saying they looked at it incorrectly to draw the incorrect conclusion is one thing - however by trying to call someone a liar or imply such in a debate is a critical mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by email from Nancy Boyda

Thank you for contacting me regarding your views about the ongoing Iraq war. I respect the time you took to share your ideas and concerns, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain my thoughts on the most recent war supplemental appropriations bill I voted for on May 24, 2007.

I voted for this bill because it became clear that President Bush would not compromise and that he would actually leave our troops unfunded. This was something I was not willing to risk.

Like every American, I hope and pray for a favorable outcome in Iraq and that over the next few months there will be a meaningful change on the ground in Iraq . By the next vote on war spending in September 2007, the President will have given Congress two reports on the situation in Iraq . If, there is no meaningful improvement by then, I believe that together, Republicans and Democrats must demonstrate to the President that things have to change.

The supplemental spending bill for the war was H.R. 2206. The bill's provisions include:

Like all of the previous supplemental bills, this bill provides 100% of the President's requested funding for the war.

$3.1 billion in BRAC funds that I have been working with my colleagues to include since the day I arrived in Congress. This is money that the previous Congress should have appropriated but failed to do.

$1.8 billion for veterans' health care and $2.1 billon for active duty military health care. This money will make it possible for us to live up to our commitments to those who serve our country so valiantly.

$3 billion in agriculture disaster relief. These funds were promised by the 109th Congress and delivered by the 110th Congress. These funds are critical to help offset crop losses for those Kansas farmers affected by the spring freeze and flooding.

$40 million in tornado relief for Greensburg , Kansas . The Kansas delegation has been pushing for these funds to be included in the next appropriations bill since the F5 tornado devastated 95% of Greensburg , Kansas .

Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me. As your representative, I both need and value your perspective on important policy matters. I hope you will not hesitate to be in contact with me - it is always good to hear from Kansans like yourself.

Sincerely,

Nancy Boyda
Member of Congress

This is not an active email account, if you would like to contact our office through email, please go to our website: http://boyda.house.gov.

---

To bad you fell right into that trap wanting to be clever - you really are not very good at proving your points.

Quote:

---

Great you provided an article that has the work Pork in the tag line but then does not mention it again.

---

Actually it mentions the pork, you just have to read the piece. As before there are other sources that say much of the same thing.

Quote:

---

Perhaps you should give this up since it does not seem like you have anything new to add. It is almost getting embarrassing.

---

For you prehaps - I don't embarrass that easily, since you have yet to prove me wrong on anything that I have stated. You don't like my conclusions - fair enough, but the thing about political opinion is that its very difficult to prove that someone is flat out wrong.

Quote:

---

Post something new, some proof of your claims, something of substance if you want to continue.

---

No need - its all opinion there, just like yours is all opinion. Opinion contains the substance of a political debate. For instance nothing I have stated have you been able to prove as wrong, only that you believe it to be incorrect. You might want to delve deeper into the process how the candidate's plan lacks detail and how it is implementated into policy - that is indeed my weakest political position - but again I also understand the process a bit. Presidential plans take a combination of Executive Orders, legislative actions to get laws and regulations for the plan, it takes congressional hearings for apporiations for the establishment of the program, and a sperate funding bill if necessary, if a new department is required it takes congressional hearings and approval for it to be instituted. In otherwords we both have left off enough significant detail to prove each other wrong and make further discussion points on the issue. The problem is you decided that detail was just to vague for you and wanted to attempt to show that no candidate can provide that level of detail. Which would be correct if I wanted the whole concept planned out. However what people are calling plans are not really plans - they are concepts that the candidate would like to pursue. For examble the current Obama Health Care Plan is really nothing more then a concept since it lacks the necessary detail to be a plan. Necessary details include the basic outline on how the plan is to be accomplished, which talks about funding, organization, how it be implemenated - phased or all at once, and a host of other details that would make it a viable plan and one that will require congress to begin its process on making the necessary legislation to bring about the laws and regulations that would implement it into national policy.

So like I said before you got all wrapped up in trying to defend a candidate where there was no attack only questions. Demonstrating the fundmental flaw of the democratic party, the average citizen can not question the candidate's agenda without it being called an attack on that candidate. You even stated that you had the right to defend him, which implies you believe I was attacking him.

Your very amusing -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Last time I will explain this, please follow along. I stated that the majority of people were inline with what MoveOn wanted. Then I clarified that statement in the fact that the majority of people what change and so does MoveOn. The type of change is irrelevant to that point.

---

Let's say that I want the United States to change into a fascist dictatorship. Does that mean that I'm in line with moveon.org and the American people, because change = change?

Let's say that I want the United States to change into a fascist dictatorship. Does that mean that I'm in line with moveon.org and the American people, because change = change?

His point seemed to be just about wanting change so technically yes, it seems like a bit of a pointless point (there was no better way i could word that) because almost everyone slightly political wants some kind of change and almost every organisation to do with politics wants some political change however small, so moveon.org, the nra and the american people all have something in common...

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Let's say that I want the United States to change into a fascist dictatorship. Does that mean that I'm in line with moveon.org and the American people, because change = change?

His point seemed to be just about wanting change so technically yes, it seems like a bit of a pointless point (there was no better way i could word that) because almost everyone slightly political wants some kind of change and almost every organisation to do with politics wants some political change however small, so moveon.org, the nra and the american people all have something in common...

---

You are correct saying people want change makes it inline with what change Moveon.org wants is indeed a pointless point - the types and scope of change is of varing degrees. MoveOn.org is advocating a great bit of change to a specific agenda - which does not equate to the type and scope of change that the majority view would like.

It seems that on the McCain blog, the Obama blog, and the Org thread, it's all Obama all the time. You'll pardon me if I find this perplexing.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...52386_7548.jpg

Maybe just an uneducated conclusion but obama supporters seem to be about how good thier guy is, mccain supporters seem to be about how bad the other guy is. If i was voting just on this i now i would be with the positive campaign, rather than the 'the other guy is terrible' campaign....

Figured i mention Obama once more to keep a 2:1 ratio going at least...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And again you are mistaken - people wanting change is not inline with what MoveOn wants - MoveOn wants a specific type of change. The type of change is relevant to the initial statement because you claimed people were inline with what MoveOn wants - to different things.

---

It may seem pointless but, I am technically correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually you have been learning - to bad you dont follow.... as for refuting - it seems that is even doubtful given the burdern of proof you wish to have provided.

---

The only things I have been learning is things about you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Explain the executive order that created the Department of Homeland Defense? That congress then backed it up only means what? Sorry your losing your arguement once again.

---

The Department of Homeland Security was created by the Homeland Security Act, Public Law 107-296, the year 2002. Executive Order - 13284 came after the Homeland Security Act in 2003. So your time line is backward. Here are links to both documents

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr...ease_0072.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Correct but they are part of the implenation process are they not? Again as stated before I want to know how the candidate plans to implement his plan. the process is far more detailed then just going to congress to get legislation to make laws and regulations. It also requires apporiation hearings and many other things. As before you focused on only one aspect without going for the full picture. To bad you didn't see it coming in your eagerness to defend Obama from an attack that was not there,

---

Now how would one have an appropriation hearing before the initial legislation is passed? Or better yet what details of that appropriation would you like at this stage of the game, other then how much it will cost. The implementation of most plans is complicated, but will be along the same lines in most cases. Even without that level of detail it is still unfair to say that the candidates' plans lack substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You did notice I said pre-screen questions - LOL

---

Yes, they may have been pre-screened by the moderator, but were not known to the candidates, and they were asked by the people posing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Again the term I use is mote - a small spec. A nothing, a piece of dust. Your point is mote nothing more then a small speck of dust in the big picture.

---

English - your doing it wrong! I'm sure that is what you meant right from the start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Not pessimistic at all - I have not seen a single thing that convinces me that either candidate is a decent candidate for office. The political party process is broken. I had hope that maybe we would have a decent candidate but both parties shot down the candidates that actually provided the most hope for the nation.

---

The political party process is broken, that does not sound pessimistic at all. It is not broken. If anything is broken it is the voters. The statement you make "Yep-which is why politicians are full of crap" shows it. I have been hearing that for years. "I have to choose the lesser of two evils" is another one. We should be holding the election up and saying this is what it is all about. We have two good candidates. One, younger with a lot of fire. The other a tested veteran who does not take any crap. Both willing to do what they feel is not the best interests of this country and its people. No, that is not the way it goes. Instead
voters pick candidates in the primaries based on little more then what prom queens are chosen, then when that person loses they cannot support the winner of that primary even when their positions are nearly the same. No, they are sore losers that now make statement such as "he has no plan", "he is not proven", "he is not honest", "he is to old", "he is to young".......and on and on, all because they refuse to look at the issues, because the might find they agree with someone they do not like. If a candidate puts more detail in a plan and then must change that, we call them a lier, a flip-flopper, indecisive. If politicians look two faces, or shady, it is because that is the way we paint then. No, not all politicians have our best interests in mind, that has been proven, but it is not the majority. Yes, I support Obama, and I do defend him. Not because I see him a savior. It is because I agree with is policies. He stands very near were I do on a great number of issues. That does not mean I vilify McCain, I disagree with his policies, but believe he has the best interests of the country at heart. If anything is broken it is us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

In otherwords it has alreadly been shown, and that all one has to do is look at history to actually see. So again you haven't disproved the opinion at all either.

---

That is correct it is only an opinion, a baseless one at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Yep - which is why politicans are all full of crap.

---

Who is speaking in absolutes now? Now we are at the heart of the issue It is this outlook way you feel that the candidates do not have substance in there plans, not because the don't, because you don't believe them. A politician could hand you the answers you want on a silver platter and you would not believe it. If they give you the detail you want, you will move on the question, as you put it, something else. In your eyes they are not good enough, in your eyes there is no true Scotsman!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Burdern of proof has alreadly been established as stated before - professional analysis all agree that the farm bill contains pork. A google search provides amable evidence of that statement. No need for me to go into more detail then the two links alreadly provided. Sorry there party hack - even your own party agrees that there is pork in the farm bill.

---

A news writer is a professional analysis? Do you think I'm going to feed you ammo against my own argument? If you are not going to put in the work, get out of the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

It exists.

---

Then prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

As before its common knowledge in the state.

---

One could say that the existence of God is common knowledge, but it cannot be proven. At one time it was common knowledge the world was flat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Until you can prove an individual is lying you should provide them the benefit of the doubt - at worst there opinion is incorrect, and best they are wrong, politics is primarily about opinion, you have demonstrated once again that you are very foolish. Saying they looked at it incorrectly to draw the incorrect conclusion is one thing - however by trying to call someone a liar or imply such in a debate is a critical mistake.

To bad you fell right into that trap wanting to be clever - you really are not very good at proving your points.

---

Oh, please help I've fallen into a trap!

Lets look at your trap. You stated "got the letter from the Representive to prove it. (Speaking of the relief funding to Kansas farmers as Pork) The relief fund was done to insure farmers in kansas voted for the individuals in congress from their state.", but in the letter from Nancy Boyda she states "$40 million in tornado relief for Greensburg , Kansas . The Kansas delegation has been pushing for these funds to be included in the next appropriations bill since the F5 tornado devastated 95% of Greensburg , Kansas.". She does not call it pork, or state that is was done for political gains. I would say that what the Kansas delegation did was their jobs. They were voted into office to represent and help the people of that state and some of those people needed help. If they do a good job they keep theirs. If you see that as pork then any time a politician gets any type of legislation or funding that helps the community that they represent it would be pork. So yes is was a trap, a trap full of a massive amount of fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually it mentions the pork, you just have to read the piece. As before there are other sources that say much of the same thing.

---

It mentions spending and funds for programs that outside of those areas people may not care about, it also mentions spending that the author feels is unneeded and unwise, but is fails to show anything that is pork, unless you go with you inane definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

For you prehaps - I don't embarrass that easily, since you have yet to prove me wrong on anything that I have stated. You don't like my conclusions - fair enough, but the thing about political opinion is that its very difficult to prove that someone is flat out wrong.

---

True, but we can show they are not backed up by fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

No need - its all opinion there, just like yours is all opinion. Opinion contains the substance of a political debate. For instance nothing I have stated have you been able to prove as wrong, only that you believe it to be incorrect. You might want to delve deeper into the process how the candidate's plan lacks detail and how it is implementated into policy - that is indeed my weakest political position - but again I also understand the process a bit. Presidential plans take a combination of Executive Orders, legislative actions to get laws and regulations for the plan, it takes congressional hearings for apporiations for the establishment of the program, and a sperate funding bill if necessary, if a new department is required it takes congressional hearings and approval for it to be instituted. In otherwords we both have left off enough significant detail to prove each other wrong and make further discussion points on the issue. The problem is you decided that detail was just to vague for you and wanted to attempt to show that no candidate can provide that level of detail. Which would be correct if I wanted the whole concept planned out. However what people are calling plans are not really plans - they are concepts that the candidate would like to pursue. For examble the current Obama Health Care Plan is really nothing more then a concept since it lacks the necessary detail to be a plan. Necessary details include the basic outline on how the plan is to be accomplished, which talks about funding, organization, how it be implemenated - phased or all at once, and a host of other details that would make it a viable plan and one that will require congress to begin its process on making the necessary legislation to bring about the laws and regulations that would implement it into national policy.

---

Again the reason you "think" they are not plans stems from your beliefs that all politicians are full of the stinky stuff. You so want to show that they have provided nothing so you can justify your vote for an imaginary mouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So like I said before you got all wrapped up in trying to defend a candidate where there was no attack only questions. Demonstrating the fundmental flaw of the democratic party, the average citizen can not question the candidate's agenda without it being called an attack on that candidate. You even stated that you had the right to defend him, which implies you believe I was attacking him.

---

Yet it was the Republican party famous for labeling anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic. Yes you questioned Obama's agenda. I questioned yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your very amusing -

---

I'm glad you think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Maybe just an uneducated conclusion but obama supporters seem to be about how good thier guy is, mccain supporters seem to be about how bad the other guy is. If i was voting just on this i now i would be with the positive campaign, rather than the 'the other guy is terrible' campaign....

Figured i mention Obama once more to keep a 2:1 ratio going at least...

---

This does concern me. This is essentially what the Kerry campaign did in 2004 and it didn't work. Te only thing is - McCain can't beat Obama in rhetorical vision other than the simple but realistically important "I am a legitimate bridge builder". If he were to make this election about appeal and charisma he would lose terribly. He is making it about middle grounded compromise and the inexperienced celebrity of Obama. I think that this is his best shot. Obama is an orator who lacks substance or experience in making executive decisions. McCain needs to hit him where he is vulnerable. We can afford to make this race about Obama since it is about him anyway. Maybe we can make people sick and wary of him instead of enamored.

It is worth a shot. I think McCain understands independents better than anyone else in the GOP. I'm not sure that many democrats understand it (other than Lemur), so maybe the codger knows what he is doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Obama is an orator who lacks substance or experience in making executive decisions. McCain needs to hit him where he is vulnerable. We can afford to make this race about Obama since it is about him anyway. Maybe we can make people sick and wary of him instead of enamored.

---

Just as someone who isn't entirely familiar with McCain's record... what executive experience does McCain have? A quick google doesn't come up with any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

This does concern me. This is essentially what the Kerry campaign did in 2004 and it didn't work. Te only thing is - McCain can't beat Obama in rhetorical vision other than the simple but realistically important "I am a legitimate bridge builder". If he were to make this election about appeal and charisma he would lose terribly. He is making it about middle grounded compromise and the inexperienced celebrity of Obama. I think that this is his best shot. Obama is an orator who lacks substance or experience in making executive decisions. McCain needs to hit him where he is vulnerable. We can afford to make this race about Obama since it is about him anyway. Maybe we can make people sick and wary of him instead of enamored.

It is worth a shot. I think McCain understands independents better than anyone else in the GOP. I'm not sure that many democrats understand it (other than Lemur), so maybe the codger knows what he is doing?

---

So far the race is about Obama, and so far it seems he is Teflon coated. McCain needs to get out and show how his policies will work better for this country then Obama's. Remember it has been said, no publicity is bad publicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

So far the race is about Obama, and so far it seems he is Teflon coated.

---

This week we have seen a substantial dip in his polling results.

Quote:

---

I don't believe that many of us on these forums have the scope to condemn or champion Free Trade in the way that we might like to.

---

Well the thing there Tuff is some people here really do like to champion free trade , and its easy to comdemn their view point because it contradicts their stance on other issues of freedom of trade , the main being the removal of restrictions on freedom of movement for labour which is an essential element of the equation as workers are just another commodity .
So while they are happy griping about tax and tarifs and restrictive labour laws they are not happy if the entire population of mexico comes across the river and takes their job away for a dollar a day .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Just as someone who isn't entirely familiar with McCain's record... what executive experience does McCain have? A quick google doesn't come up with any.

---

I think that you can view his Military career as a type of executive experience that should never be discounted. He was involved for a long period of time and held commanding positions for a large part - he was a squadron commander and ran training at an airbase. Couple this with his staggeringly long and successful career in The U.S. Congress and it is a resume that Obama can't touch.

His record for getting things done is much more prolific and he has the "pull the trigger in a clutch mentality". McCain knows consequence well and calls decent shots even when times get tough.

I hope that he picks someone with good economic credentials, but neither he nor Obama are no Econ-Oracles.

There are quite a few used car salesman pushing the shiny Obama model - but they don't have any upkeep records. Take their word for it!


Who knows what will happen or what is best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

It may seem pointless but, I am technically correct.

---

Actually nope - you attempted to make a direct link between the two that is not there.

Quote:

---

The Department of Homeland Security was created by the Homeland Security Act, Public Law 107-296, the year 2002. Executive Order - 13284 came after the Homeland Security Act in 2003. So your time line is backward. Here are links to both documents

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr...ease_0072.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf

---

Good - you actually can do some of your own google research, and proved my statement incorrect. Now how did the Department of Homeland Security get started? Its wasn't the brianchild of congress. There was a process the President had to follow in order to get the department implemented, was it some majically process where he went to congress to ask for laws and regulations, or did he present some requests that explained what he invisioned the department to be and how to organize it?

Quote:

---

Now how would one have an appropriation hearing before the initial legislation is passed? Or better yet what details of that appropriation would you like at this stage of the game, other then how much it will cost. The implementation of most plans is complicated, but will be along the same lines in most cases. Even without that level of detail it is still unfair to say that the candidates' plans lack substance.

---

Unfortunetly for you it is not unfair. Your attempting to say that a candidate can convince me only by concepts of what he wants - sorry not so naive as that. As stated before if the candidate is going to have something more then a concept - if its a plan it has to have details in it, information about costs, how its going to be organized, time line for implenation, and a whole host of other details solely missing in his "Plan."

Quote:

---

Yes, they may have been pre-screened by the moderator, but were not known to the candidates, and they were asked by the people posing them.

---

And what was my point? Yep that they were pre-screened.

Quote:

---

English - your doing it wrong! I'm sure that is what you meant right from the start.

---

No I meant Mote from the very beginning there - my english is fine. Sometime you might figure out exactly why I used the term in the first place.

Quote:

---

The political party process is broken, that does not sound pessimistic at all. It is not broken. If anything is broken it is the voters. The statement you make "Yep-which is why politicians are full of crap" shows it. I have been hearing that for years. "I have to choose the lesser of two evils" is another one. We should be holding the election up and saying this is what it is all about. We have two good candidates. One, younger with a lot of fire. The other a tested veteran who does not take any crap. Both willing to do what they feel is not the best interests of this country and its people. No, that is not the way it goes. Instead voters pick candidates in the primaries based on little more then what prom queens are chosen, then when that person loses they cannot support the winner of that primary even when their positions are nearly the same. No, they are sore losers that now make statement such as "he has no plan", "he is not proven", "he is not honest", "he is to old", "he is to young".......and on and on, all because they refuse to look at the issues, because the might find they agree with someone they do not like. If a candidate puts more detail in a plan and then must change that, we call them a lier, a flip-flopper, indecisive. If politicians look two faces, or shady, it is because that is the way we paint then. No, not all politicians have our best interests in mind, that has been proven, but it is not the majority. Yes, I support Obama, and I do defend him. Not because I see him a savior. It is because I agree with is policies. He stands very near were I do on a great number of issues. That does not mean I vilify McCain, I disagree with his policies, but believe he has the best interests of the country at heart. If anything is broken it is us.

---

So you argee then the political party process is indeed broken when we ourselves are the political parties? Like I said the political parties are broken. Voters primarily belong to one of two major parties.

But then again you seemly assume that I am attempting to vilify Obama - dont see any attempt to vilify Obama anywhere in my writting - only made the statement that he is just another typical politician.

Quote:

---

That is correct it is only an opinion, a baseless one at that.

---

LOL - baseless nope, seems your have difficultly again.

Quote:

---

Who is speaking in absolutes now? Now we are at the heart of the issue It is this outlook way you feel that the candidates do not have substance in there plans, not because the don't, because you don't believe them. A politician could hand you the answers you want on a silver platter and you would not believe it. If they give you the detail you want, you will move on the question, as you put it, something else. In your eyes they are not good enough, in your eyes there is no true Scotsman!

---

Wrong arguement to present - if the candidate had substance in the plan I would be able to follow exactly what he is saying - unfortunately neither candidate has much substance in their political concepts that they are presenting to the american people.

Quote:

---

A news writer is a professional analysis? Do you think I'm going to feed you ammo against my own argument? If you are not going to put in the work, get out of the argument.

---

Again pot calling the kettle black - as stated several times - most professional analysis agree that the farm bill contains pork. So what if I use a news writer's article as a link, it neither proves nor disproves my point - you haven't been able to dispute that the bill contains pork. And you darn well know you can't. And again when discussing politics its primarily about opinion. Therefore to say I am wrong requires a little bit of legwork besides saying that I am wrong.

Quote:

---

Then prove me wrong.

---

Alreadly done

Quote:

---

One could say that the existence of God is common knowledge, but it cannot be proven. At one time it was common knowledge the world was flat.

---

Yep you can't prove god exists but neither can you disprove his existance.

Quote:

---

Oh, please help I've fallen into a trap!

---

Like I said be careful of what you call people.

Quote:

---

Lets look at your trap. You stated "got the letter from the Representive to prove it. (Speaking of the relief funding to Kansas farmers as Pork) The relief fund was done to insure farmers in kansas voted for the individuals in congress from their state.", but in the letter from Nancy Boyda she states "$40 million in tornado relief for Greensburg , Kansas . The Kansas delegation has been pushing for these funds to be included in the next appropriations bill since the F5 tornado devastated 95% of Greensburg , Kansas.". She does not call it pork, or state that is was done for political gains. I would say that what the Kansas delegation did was their jobs. They were voted into office to represent and help the people of that state and some of those people needed help. If they do a good job they keep theirs. If you see that as pork then any time a politician gets any type of legislation or funding that helps the community that they represent it would be pork. So yes is was a trap, a trap full of a massive amount of fail.

---

Nope it shows your attempt at calling people a liar is misplaced. Now I didn't claim that the representive would say its pork now did I? you read into the statement what you wanted to read into it. Are you having reading comprehension problems again? ( I told you once before about how you present your arguement, and I dont have a problem going tit for tat with you with the personal slams.)

And as stated before both items should of been presented in an emergency relief bill just like its suppose to happen. Especially given that greensburg was a declared national emergency. Anything that does not follow the proper process for its own funding is wrong be it a rider or pork. Then there were the other measures in the bill that she didnt mention because it didnt support her position in her response. But then all I asked her was to do her duty in regards to the Constitution and the War Power's Act of 1973. To bad she didn't, she voted for political expidency (SP?)

Quote:

---

It mentions spending and funds for programs that outside of those areas people may not care about, it also mentions spending that the author feels is unneeded and unwise, but is fails to show anything that is pork, unless you go with you inane definition.

---

Not at all - as stated before the bill contains pork - some of it might be just riders that are unneeded and unwise, but some of it is indeed pork, done for political gain to garner votes from the farming community throughout the nation.

Quote:

---

True, but we can show they are not backed up by fact.

---

So far you have not done a very good job of that - you have primarily countered with your own opinion.

Quote:

---

Again the reason you "think" they are not plans stems from your beliefs that all politicians are full of the stinky stuff. You so want to show that they have provided nothing so you can justify your vote for an imaginary mouse.

---

Actually I have a good understanding of what constitutes a plan and what constitutes a concept, having written many a military operations plan. What both candidates have posted on their websights is concepts, things that the candidate can provide to his staff a basis for developing a plan to accomplish the task that the candidate wants to accomplish, but plans they are not.

Quote:

---

Yet it was the Republican party famous for labeling anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic. Yes you questioned Obama's agenda. I questioned yours.

---

Good thing I have no agenda, something you fail to realize. All I have is questions of the candidates. You chose to make it personal because someone dare question your favorite candidate, frankly I am not surprised but it rather amuses me to have such discussion. . However has stated before I have not made a decision about either candidate.

Quote:

---

I'm glad you think so.

---

Yep very amused - your completely full of yourself without much ability to see when someone is messing with you completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

This week we have seen a substantial dip in his polling results.

---

....and if they stay like that I would then agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well the thing there Tuff is some people here really do like to champion free trade , and its easy to comdemn their view point because it contradicts their stance on other issues of freedom of trade , the main being the removal of restrictions on freedom of movement for labour which is an essential element of the equation as workers are just another commodity .
So while they are happy griping about tax and tarifs and restrictive labour laws they are not happy if the entire population of mexico comes across the river and takes their job away for a dollar a day .

---

Goods and ideas can be traded freely without mandatory mass-migration. Why do they get upset when diseases like malaria come across our borders? Hypocrites.

We want what is best - free trade is a tool to get that. When it doesn't get us what is best, it falls into question.

"Free Speech" is a similar concept. We say "Free Speech" but many of us don't mean that. I can't sing a Brittany Spears song in public for pay legally. I can't scream "fire" in crowded theater legally. I can't threaten people's lives legally. Would you call people who support those limits to free-speech hypocrites? Probably, but I wouldn't - it is a man-made concept, therefore I don't expect it to be 100% useful or accurate.

What should we call "Free-Trade" to avoid being called hypocrites? 80% Free Trade with a 20% regulation variable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

....and if they stay like that I would then agree with you.

---

This election is Obama's to lose. I learned from the democratic primaries that prolonged flat or negative trends were especially bad for Obama's results. If we saw his numbers decline slightly before the election he was likely to lose even if his pre-polls were still leading the opposition, sometimes by 5 to 10 points. This was in the Democratic primary - how will those trends play out in a general election? I don't know.

He has been doing a remarkable job, but people might be bored with him by election time. You never know with massive groups of people.

I don't know who would be better as President to be honest, but I will vote for McCain because he is a known entity and I trust his independence. I also don't want to see a Democratic Legislature, Executive (and, by extension, Judiciary). I think die hard democrats can see why a one party State led by a charismatic, but inexperienced demagogue might be a bad idea.

I think Demagogue might be a bit harsh...

Quote:

---

I think that you can view his Military career as a type of executive experience that should never be discounted. He was involved for a long period of time and held commanding positions for a large part - he was a squadron commander and ran training at an airbase. Couple this with his staggeringly long and successful career in The U.S. Congress and it is a resume that Obama can't touch.

---

Military careers don't count as Executive experience in my eyes. It counts as military experience, which I won't deny he has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Military careers don't count as Executive experience in my eyes. It counts as military experience, which I won't deny he has.

---

In my opinion Rabbits don't count as lagomorphs. Please explain why you wouldn't consider military command executive experience and I'll explain my opinion on rabbits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

In my opinion Rabbits arn't lagomorphs. Please explain why you wouldn't consider military command executive experience and I'll explain my opinion on rabbits.

---

Alright. Wiki makes my point for me:

Quote:

---

Executive Experience is defined as experience where one is the top (or 2nd top) decision maker for the company, State, large military unit, etc. (See for example, Army General, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Vice President of the United States, prior President of the United States, and Chief Executive Officer.)

---

Large military units are anything like a General. Now, explain your opinion on Rabbits.

Military careers don't count as Executive experience in my eyes. It counts as military experience, which I won't deny he has.

I have always wondered why military experience is considered such a value, unless one was a top rank general i don't see it changing much in terms of being the head of the army, theres the main one about seeing the horrors of war but ex-military politicians seem to be pretty much in line with non-ex-military politicians when it comes to going to war or not (infact i think of them as a bit more up for it, this may be imagined though)

I don't know who would be better as President to be honest, but I will vote for McCain because he is a known entity and I trust his independence. I also don't want to see a Democratic Legislature, Executive (and, by extension, Judiciary). I think die hard democrats can see why a one party State led by a charismatic, but inexperienced demagogue might be a bad idea.

Is this the main reason for support of Mccain over Obama, i don't doubt you but i always thought of you as fairly conservative, whilst obama may not quite be 'most liberal eva!' he does seem more liberal than Mccain, or is this somewhat to do with Mccains questions conservative convictions ?

I have always thought that power being split across the houses between the partys was a better idea, unfortunatly even people who think this is a good idea will not vote against thier views... i remember having the conversation here back in 04 Bush Kerry (those were they days eh? bushisms and swiftboating...)with someone who said they disliked one party holding all the power, but they were still planning to vote bush because it was too important not too, i can symapthise with that, if the bush kerry situation was reversed despite my dislike for concentrated power i could not bring myself to vote for bush

and there you have it, Mccain just got mentioned twice as much as the other guy, its a first...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Alright. Wiki makes my point for me:

Large military units are anything like a General. Now, explain your opinion on Rabbits.

---

If you are referring to Government - I agree that he has had no real "executive" experience. If you consider a more colloquial definition of executive, it is apparent that he has had more of it than Obama by a long shot. Quite a few company's have a number of people called "executives" - senior managers.

Very few Senators have had the kind of Executive experience that we would like them to have, but when given an alternative between a Senator with a Green thumb or a Senator who has been in the business for many years and has commanded men through life or death decisions in wartime and out successfully, the decision becomes a bit easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

IVery few Senators have had the kind of Executive experience that we would like them to have, but when given an alternative between a Senator with a Green thumb or a Senator who has been in the business for many years and has commanded men through life or death decisions in wartime and out successfully, the decision becomes a bit easier.

---

That is why so few have ever been elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Is this the main reason for support of Mccain over Obama, i don't doubt you but i always thought of you as fairly conservative, whilst obama may not quite be 'most liberal eva!' he does seem more liberal than Mccain, or is this somewhat to do with Mccains questions conservative convictions ?

---

It has to do with being upset with Republicans in a tough economic year. I see good things happening. Reform Repubs are getting more popular. Guys (and gals) like; Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Tom Coburn, Chuck Hagel, Eric Cantor, Ron Paul and Paul Ryan are getting more popular. I'd love to see the aforementioned types in a McCain cabinet rather than the creeps Obama would appoint. At the same time "MainStreet" pork spenders like Stevens and Craig are getting hit hard and leaving office.

Anti-reform Republicans are part of that problem and should be dealt with like the problems in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That is why so few have ever been elected.

---

7 out of 44 (I'm including either Obama or McCain). That is not too many at all.

You still owe me an explanation of why Rabbits aren't lagomorphs :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You still owe me an explanation of why Rabbits aren't lagomorphs :wink:

---

They clearly are. I was trying to make a stronger analogous point than my argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

They clearly are. I was trying to make a stronger analogous point than my argument.

---

I know, hence the :wink:

Quote:

---

We want what is best - free trade is a tool to get that. When it doesn't get us what is best, it falls into question.

---

What you want is free trade as long as it is of maximum benefit to yourselves , that is called protectionism which is pretty contradictory to the idea of free trade .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What you want is free trade as long as it is of maximum benefit to yourselves , that is called protectionism which is pretty contradictory to the idea of free trade .

---

I meant "we" as in "all of us". If I was talking about the U.S. only - that would be protectionism. I view "Free-Trade" as a very effective tool to help everybody in the world do a bit better. When it ceases to help "everybody" and begins to target the U.S. and benefit totalitarian cheaters - the tool is not functioning properly. Some would argue that we should continue to use the tool as usual and that the problem is just a blip. I wouldn't agree. I also wouldn't support Free-Trade if it was detrimental to the U.S. and to the benefit of everybody else. I don't support heartless mercantilism either. There needs to be a good balance.

Analogy: If I was using a power drill to build a wooden house for my family and it started hissing and spewing sparks - I would modify, repair or replace the drill. Why would I risk losing the house? Which is more important - the drill or the house? I say the tool should benefit the house.

U.S. centered free-trade as a tool for the betterment of everybody is my objective. If either of those variables change, so does my support for the whole deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It seems that on the McCain blog, the Obama blog, and the Org thread, it's all Obama all the time. You'll pardon me if I find this perplexing.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...52386_7548.jpg

---

That's odd. I would've sworn the number one word on Obama.com is 'donate'. Anywhere I click leads to a page asking for my credit card.

It's a funny election though. It's a referendum on Obama more than anything else.

I do hope the One wins. For a number of reasons:
- to punish the Republicans. The GOP descended into depths of sinister cynicism and depravity that deserves an unlimited spanking.
- Obama as president will be cool. There's no way around it.
- I do not want to run the risk of eternal damnation if he really is the Second Coming...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That's odd. I would've sworn the number one word on Obama.com is 'donate'. Anywhere I click leads to a page asking for my credit card.

It's a funny election though. It's a referendum on Obama more than anything else.

I do hope the One wins. For a number of reasons:
- to punish the Republicans. The GOP descended into depths of sinister cynicism and depravity that deserves an unlimited spanking.

---

Doesn't a Dem majority in both houses an McCain as the party leader already do that? That is a fitting punishment in my book.