PDA

View Full Version : To the McCain supporters...



yermom
6/18/2008, 11:51 AM
you know, for completeness sake

why McCain? other than the fact that he's not a Democrat, and not Obama

sooner_born_1960
6/18/2008, 11:52 AM
Because Bush can't run again.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/18/2008, 01:06 PM
He's the "not Obama" candidate. He's not a complete leftist.

badger
6/18/2008, 01:19 PM
Because I believe what he says when he says something.

Because he is a veteran.

Because I agree with what he says most of the time.

Because there will never be a dull press conference or presidential address during his entire term and his teleprompter will never be necessary :D

Because I don't feel like I know enough about Obama's values to vote for him.

Because after W, I feel like experience is very important to run for president.

Because I don't agree with Obama's ideas of universal healthcare and liberal voting record during a brief time in the Senate.

Because even though I wouldn't vote for Bush again if I could, I don't think McCain is Bush.

Because I resent how Democrats are portraying McCain as a sequel to Bush, when they tried their best to avoid the same tag on Gore compared to Clinton.

Because deep down, I wish that we had different nominees to choose from, but will choose the candidate I disagree with less and the one I am more familiar with.

XingTheRubicon
6/18/2008, 02:17 PM
Because an inexperienced commie should be a back-up goalie.

SicEmBaylor
6/18/2008, 02:18 PM
you know, for completeness sake

why McCain? other than the fact that he's not a Democrat, and not Obama

I've been asking this same question since 2000.

tbl
6/18/2008, 02:20 PM
For me, there is no "other than the fact". That's my reason. I've voted Libertarian in the last two elections and I believe this will be my first vote on the Republican ticket.

SicEmBaylor
6/18/2008, 02:26 PM
For me, there is no "other than the fact". That's my reason. I've voted Libertarian in the last two elections and I believe this will be my first vote on the Republican ticket.

I'm doing the complete opposite of that. I have always voted Republican and will now vote Libertarian.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 02:28 PM
Because I believe what he says when he says something.


What he says now or what he was saying in 2000? Because those are two completely different things in most cases.

mikeelikee
6/18/2008, 02:29 PM
I'm no McCain fan, but I'll vote for him over Obama for one reason, and one reason only--the war on radical Islamofascism. McCain will continue to prosecute it, and I don't trust Obama to do it.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/18/2008, 02:35 PM
Who was it that said "I'de rather have a third-rate fireman than a first-rate arsonist"? Tough to argue with that, Sic-Em!

Okla-homey
6/18/2008, 02:36 PM
Honestly,

1) Because he is a moderate who tips right. Like me, and most of the people I know and care about. I don't like extremists either L or R.

2) He has extensive military experience in which he had considerable responsiblilty. Command of a carrier air wing is a very big deal.

3) He kept faith with his comrades and this country under unspeakably horrible conditions in Hanoi.

Jimminy Crimson
6/18/2008, 02:46 PM
He's a pimp.

Bourbon St Sooner
6/18/2008, 03:33 PM
Obviously because Rambo's not running.

badger
6/18/2008, 03:40 PM
What he says now or what he was saying in 2000? Because those are two completely different things in most cases.

For the record, I can still change my vote, but if the election were today, that's how I would vote and why I would vote that way.

People's minds can change in eight years. In 2000, I was mostly a Badger fan, but today, I am mostly a Sooner fan... but pray everyday that the two teams never meet up.:O

I would attribute changing the message to changing opinions. I know it is a thin line, like the difference between "lying" and "not telling the truth," but there is still a difference.

KC//CRIMSON
6/18/2008, 03:45 PM
01-20-09

End of an error!

SicEmBaylor
6/18/2008, 03:49 PM
For the record, I can still change my vote, but if the election were today, that's how I would vote and why I would vote that way.

People's minds can change in eight years. In 2000, I was mostly a Badger fan, but today, I am mostly a Sooner fan... but pray everyday that the two teams never meet up.:O

I would attribute changing the message to changing opinions. I know it is a thin line, like the difference between "lying" and "not telling the truth," but there is still a difference.

What can I say to convince you to vote for Barr? Whatever it is can we assume that I already said it and you've already agreed to vote for him?

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 03:50 PM
People's minds can change in eight years.

I guess it's just a coincidence that all of McCain's new positions happen to align with the Republican base. I would have voted for McCain 2000 (minus the rageaholic factor), but not McCain 2008. It's possible that McCain 2008 is an election ploy and McCain 2000 is still the real McCain, but that's just another reason to not vote for him.

JohnnyMack
6/18/2008, 03:57 PM
If you don't like McCain's position on the issues, just wait a while and he'll flip flop for you.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 04:04 PM
What can I say to convince you to vote for Barr?

Vote Bob Barr - The Other Black Candidate

He's going to be on the ballot in Oklahoma? Vote for him, vote for McCain, vote for Obama, vote for Ralph Nader. Doesn't matter in this state.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 04:16 PM
Bob Barr will be a guest on Your World w/Neil Cavuto on Fox News at 4:20 this afternoon.

Heh! Just a coincidence I'm sure. :D

badger
6/18/2008, 04:19 PM
I am not a Republican rubber stamp vote - I actually consider each candidate before casting a ballot. It just so happens I usually lean Republican.

I was too young to vote in 2000, but for my first presidential election, I had a very good reason to vote for Bush. Before the Bush tax cuts kicked in and I was still under the Clinton taxes, I was seeing a good chunk of my minimum wagin' thrown out to Uncle Sam and not a lot returned.

Come the next summer, after the Bush tax cuts, I saw a lot more of my check in take-home pay.

All other things equal in my opinion, I voted for Bush. Kerry called the tax cut irresponsible. I worked around people that are still on those minimum wage jobs and I call it "irresponsible" to shoulder as much tax burden on them as was the case pre-tax cuts. These people have families (or at least child support), escalading rents and debts far greater than a teenage college student. I can't imagine what it's like to see that much of your check eaten out each time you get paid and wonder what happens when the bill comes due. Of course there's tax refunds, but what good does that do when you have immediate financial needs? It's easier to say "save your money" when you have money to save, as I do now. It's harder to save money when your car breaks down, when you get ill, when you child needs school supplies.

I had to vote for Bush for that reason. I still remember a bitter co-worker saying "Never get married and never have kids" on payday. Not exactly good conversation-starter material, is it? But, that's stuck with me till today.

In retrospect, I'm not sure if I should have voted for Bush, but can say that I had a very good reason to. I know that people will have their reasons for voting for either McCain or for Obama this time around. I hope that before the election, that very good reason to cast my vote either way comes up like it did on payday a few years back.

C&CDean
6/18/2008, 04:23 PM
I'll vote for him because out of the two chunks of **** we've got to choose from he is BY FAR the most sensible choice.

And he's a vet, a former POW, and semi-conservative. And he's not a commie, a chuslum (you know, somebody who plays like he's a christian and a muslim depending on which group he's giving his all-universe best speaker in the history of speaking rah rah speeches for the dumbasses who buy his pile of CHANGE! manure), and I honestly believe he's an honorable man.

SicEmBaylor
6/18/2008, 04:24 PM
Vote Bob Barr - The Other Black Candidate

He's going to be on the ballot in Oklahoma? Vote for him, vote for McCain, vote for Obama, vote for Ralph Nader. Doesn't matter in this state.

He's working on access. If he does get on the ballot it'll be as an independent and not a Libertarian candidate.

Nonetheless, I'm changing my registration to Texas.

Bone
6/18/2008, 04:27 PM
I'm doing the complete opposite of that. I have always voted Republican and will now vote Libertarian.

This is where I am too.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 04:29 PM
Come the next summer, after the Bush tax cuts, I saw a lot more of my check in take-home pay.


Did you ever think of who was paying for that tax cut?

Why is it wrong for people to vote for the Democrat who promises to put more money in their pocket when that money comes from other tax payers now, but it's not wrong for people to vote for the Republican who promises to put more money in their pocket when that money comes from other tax payers in the future, with interest? I guess it's only pandering when somebody else falls for it.

SicEmBaylor
6/18/2008, 04:51 PM
Did you ever think of who was paying for that tax cut?

Why is it wrong for people to vote for the Democrat who promises to put more money in their pocket when that money comes from other tax payers now, but it's not wrong for people to vote for the Republican who promises to put more money in their pocket when that money comes from other tax payers in the future, with interest? I guess it's only pandering when somebody else falls for it.

The problem isn't with the tax cuts; the problem is with tax cuts that aren't coupled with cuts in spending.

yermom
6/18/2008, 04:52 PM
but tax cuts stimulate spending and the economy grows :rolleyes:

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 04:53 PM
the problem is with tax cuts that aren't coupled with cuts in spending

aka "the Bush years"

McCain wants to cut taxes more than he wants to cut spending, and Obama wants to increase spending more than he wants to increase taxes. Meh. More of the same.

SicEmBaylor
6/18/2008, 04:58 PM
aka "the Bush years"

McCain wants to cut taxes more than he wants to cut spending, and Obama wants to increase spending more than he wants to increase taxes. Meh. More of the same.

Yep.

Condescending Sooner
6/18/2008, 05:05 PM
This is where I am too.

Why even bother to vote?

TexasLidig8r
6/18/2008, 05:05 PM
What is McCain's position on US policy in the Middle East in general? At what point does he support a gradual pull out of Iraq? What are his plans to deal with an ever increasingly uncomfortable situation in Iran?

The credit industry in the Unites States is broken. How does McCain plan to review and/or propose legislation to address the almost draconian measures implemented by many credit card companies?

achiro
6/18/2008, 05:06 PM
aka "the Bush years"

McCain wants to cut taxes more than he wants to cut spending,
Not so sure about that. Historically hasn't McCain been one of those that always ranted against the pork barrel spending?

achiro
6/18/2008, 05:06 PM
Oh, and Yermom, your thread SUCKS, it was off topic from the start! You are not yelling FOUL enough!

yermom
6/18/2008, 05:08 PM
FOUL

lol

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 05:14 PM
Not so sure about that. Historically hasn't McCain been one of those that always ranted against the pork barrel spending?

I don't remember where I saw it (CNN web site or some place like that), but somebody crunched the numbers on both candidates' budget plans. Both of them would increase the deficit, but McCain's budget would increase it a little more. And by "a little" we're talking a few billions, or maybe trillions. Who can keep track anymore.

EDIT:

Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_i.html)


McCain seems to say that he can save $100 billion by cutting out earmarks. But budget experts say that cutting earmarks would actually save very little. And questioned more closely, McCain's campaign now says that his planned savings have nothing to do with eliminating earmarks.

The problem with cutting pork barrel spending--or government spending in general--is that everybody wants to cut somebody else's spending while keeping the fat coming their way.

soonerscuba
6/18/2008, 05:15 PM
Not so sure about that. Historically hasn't McCain been one of those that always ranted against the pork barrel spending?
Yes, problem is, like many Republicans, he is of the mindset that defense spending, magically, isn't government spending.

I did see he wants to open 45 nuclear power plants, good on him. Although I prefer the expansion of alternative energy, I think that nuclear is a better short term solution.

Scott D
6/18/2008, 05:19 PM
I don't.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 05:23 PM
I think that nuclear is a better short term solution

The problem is that there's nothing "short term" about building a nuclear plant.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 05:31 PM
The problem with cutting pork barrel spending--or government spending in general--is that everybody wants to cut somebody else's spending while keeping the fat coming their way.


More about the fallacy of earmarks:


But contrary to popular belief -- this is the first of several bits of information readers may be surprised by -- cutting earmarks wouldn't necessarily cut government spending, according to independent budget experts from across the political spectrum. Jeff Patch, a budget fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute (and also a former McCain volunteer) told FactCheck.org that "earmarks just direct funds from executive agencies to specific projects or companies." That is, while there are still a few pet projects slipped into legislation in the dark of night that do increase the federal budget, earmarks often simply tell agencies how to spend money that they are already getting.

I went to one of Rep. Tom Cole's town hall meetings last year, and he explained it the same way. Earmarks don't spend new money, they just specify where already spent money is to be directed. Like the "bridge to nowhere"--that money would just be spent somewhere else in the highway budget if it wasn't spent on that specific project. The real reason people hate earmarks is because earmarks might take the government cheese out of their mouth and give it to somebody else.

r5TPsooner
6/18/2008, 05:37 PM
Because Obama really doesn't stand for anything in general except spending upper middle class tax dollars.

Because he will be stronger on national defense.

Because he has finally seen the light and there may be hope of drilling off the shores of the US for oil.

Unlike Obama, he is not owned by the Kennedy's.

Unlike Obama, he's not afraid to **** his party off and go against it if he feels it is the best thing for our country.

He will only tax us half to death instead of taxing upper middle class into submission.

When it was time for a tough vote in the Senate, McCain usually showed up to do so while Obama took a vacation day.

His stance is a bit better than that of Obama on illegal immigration.

His stance on abortion.

Obama is a pretty boy and McCain is a military man.

Harry Beanbag
6/18/2008, 05:38 PM
The problem is that there's nothing "short term" about building a nuclear plant.


Yeah, once you build a nuclear reactor, you're married to it. Nuclear costs are ginormous upfront, but once you're up and running the cost is minimal.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 05:40 PM
Unlike Obama, he's not afraid to **** his party off and go against it if he feels it is the best thing for our country.


That was Maverick McCain. He has been replaced by the new model, Presidential Candidate McCain, born-again Republican.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 05:41 PM
Yeah, once you build a nuclear reactor, you're married to it. Nuclear costs are ginormous upfront, but once you're up and running the cost is minimal.

Not as minimal as wind or solar.

Harry Beanbag
6/18/2008, 05:48 PM
Not as minimal as wind or solar.


I didn't know we were comparing them. :confused:

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 05:52 PM
I didn't know we were comparing them. :confused:

soonerscuba said that nuclear is a better short-term solution than alternative energy. Even with a 2-3 year assessment period, I bet you can put up a wind farm faster than a nuclear plant.

Scott D
6/18/2008, 05:58 PM
the ohio democratic party is using the wind farm angle as a reason to not vote for mccain stating that he continually votes against them, and so on and so forth. I really wasn't paying much attention to the radio ad. But they definitely have quite a few of those wind farms here.

Harry Beanbag
6/18/2008, 05:59 PM
soonerscuba said that nuclear is a better short-term solution than alternative energy. Even with a 2-3 year assessment period, I bet you can put up a wind farm faster than a nuclear plant.


And I was just reiterating your point that nuclear isn't a short term solution. If we do decide to go nuclear, we will be stuck with it, which will most likely retard wind or solar on the large scale.

You can do just about anything, besides repair a freeway in Oklahoma ;), faster than build a nuclear power plant.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 06:13 PM
And I was just reiterating your point that nuclear isn't a short term solution.

Forget what I was saying about construction time, I plead temporary confusion.

I meant to point out that the M&O costs for wind and solar are very minimal, and construction costs are a lot less than nuclear. I've seen a lot of different numbers for nuclear; each megawatt of nuclear is either very cheap or very expensive depending on whether or not you factor in the construction costs. It costs about $1.50-$2 per watt to build a wind farm, but that is amortized over the 20-year life of a turbine. I have no idea what the specific M&O costs are.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/18/2008, 06:17 PM
Did you ever think of who was paying for that tax cut?

I get tickled(if I'm in the right mood) at hearing the question "How do we pay for that tax cut"? Oh,I don't know...YOU FREAKIN' CUT DOWN THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, GENIUS!!!

Besides, you prolly won't even have to do that. Tax cuts are usually followed by growth of govt. revenue, due to the resuting expansion of the economy...once again, DUH!

Harry Beanbag
6/18/2008, 06:20 PM
Forget what I was saying about construction time, I plead temporary confusion.

I meant to point out that the M&O costs for wind and solar are very minimal, and construction costs are a lot less than nuclear. I've seen a lot of different numbers for nuclear; each megawatt of nuclear is either very cheap or very expensive depending on whether or not you factor in the construction costs. It costs about $1.50-$2 per watt to build a wind farm, but that is amortized over the 20-year life of a turbine. I have no idea what the specific M&O costs are.


I'm all for wind and solar, even over nuclear for obvious reasons. I just have no idea how many square miles of land you would have to occupy with wind turbines or solar panels to account for one nuclear power plant.

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 06:25 PM
I get tickled(if I'm in the right mood) at hearing the question "How do we pay for that tax cut"? Oh,I don't know...YOU FREAKIN' CUT DOWN THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, GENIUS!!!

Tell this to your Republican cronies.




Besides, you prolly won't even have to do that. Tax cuts are usually followed by growth of govt. revenue, due to the resuting expansion of the economy...once again, DUH!

IT'S MAGIC!

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 06:34 PM
I'm all for wind and solar, even over nuclear for obvious reasons. I just have no idea how many square miles of land you would have to occupy with wind turbines or solar panels to account for one nuclear power plant.

A lot. The biggest two drawbacks to wind power are its intermittent nature and low density. Solar might be the best overall solution because you can put solar panels everywhere, like on the roofs of buildings. Germany is all over this, and they have become a leader in the solar industry. But going green will ruin our economy! :rolleyes:

They're planning a solar building (http://digg.com/environment/Stunning_Solar_Building_to_Generate_More_Power_Tha n_It_Needs) in Dubai that will produce more energy than it uses. This is the kind of thinking we need in the US, but it's just more business as usual around here while the rest of the developed world leaves us behind.

soonerscuba
6/18/2008, 08:12 PM
I guess I should have qualified my statement as to short term meaning within the next 100 years. I think that practically, we as a nation, are not going to be quick on the uptake of solar and wind energy. I think that nuclear is the 3rd best option, and the fact that it is relatively safe, especially in a regulation rich environment such as the US.

That said, I was assuming (because I know nothing of the costs and time related to construction) that even if more expensive, better than oil based energy.

soonerscuba
6/18/2008, 08:15 PM
Nix my earlier point, I just saw the last reactor to come on board was green lit in 1970 and became operational in 1996. Jesus.

C&CDean
6/18/2008, 08:38 PM
Save the whales!! Save the fishies!!

Oh wait, wrong thead.....maybe?

mdklatt
6/18/2008, 09:12 PM
That said, I was assuming (because I know nothing of the costs and time related to construction) that even if more expensive, better than oil based energy.

Who knows what the true costs are since everything gets subsidized and external factors are never added in.

MR2-Sooner86
6/18/2008, 10:11 PM
Seeing as how my dad works for a power company I thought I'd give some of the knowledge I know.

Nuclear is the way to go. Even though it takes close to 20 years to clear all the red tape.

The BEST wind turbines generate 5 megawatts. Those are the big ones with 100 foot fans. Average for a wind turbine is 2-3 megawatts.

As for the generators at dams it depends. Some of the higher ones can get close to 40 megawatts while some are down around 25 megawatts.

Now lets go to coal fire plants. The two coal fire plants I know of can generate up to 500 megawatts.

From what I hear nuclear plants can support even more and they can produce up to 800 megawatts.

Now from what I understand Nellis Solar Power Plant is the largest in the country. It takes up 140 acres. I don't know how much it makes but each solar panel makes 3 megawatts.

So on average you're look at close to 300 solar panels or wind turbins to equal just one nuclear generator.

As stated, you need lots of space and area for these things. I'm not a nut about wind as you can't count on it. Solar on the other hand can be put in areas out of the way, like roofs, and help out. Again, what do you do at night? How do you keep them out of the way and not take up so much space?

GottaHavePride
6/18/2008, 10:25 PM
That one's easy. Just put solar panels on the roofs of buildings. Either tax incentives for doing it or penalties for not doing it. Panels provided free of charge so long as they get hooked into the power grid. Then instead of transfer stations you'll need sort of battery UPS stations to collect the power during the day and distribute it at night.

It wouldn't happen overnight, but it's not that hard to do.

Harry Beanbag
6/18/2008, 10:43 PM
Seeing as how my dad works for a power company I thought I'd give some of the knowledge I know.

Nuclear is the way to go. Even though it takes close to 20 years to clear all the red tape.

The BEST wind turbines generate 5 megawatts. Those are the big ones with 100 foot fans. Average for a wind turbine is 2-3 megawatts.

As for the generators at dams it depends. Some of the higher ones can get close to 40 megawatts while some are down around 25 megawatts.

Now lets go to coal fire plants. The two coal fire plants I know of can generate up to 500 megawatts.

From what I hear nuclear plants can support even more and they can produce up to 800 megawatts.

Now from what I understand Nellis Solar Power Plant is the largest in the country. It takes up 140 acres. I don't know how much it makes but each solar panel makes 3 megawatts.

So on average you're look at close to 300 solar panels or wind turbins to equal just one nuclear generator.

As stated, you need lots of space and area for these things. I'm not a nut about wind as you can't count on it. Solar on the other hand can be put in areas out of the way, like roofs, and help out. Again, what do you do at night? How do you keep them out of the way and not take up so much space?


The reactors that I operated and maintained on the cruiser I served on were rated at 150 MW each. Nimitz Class carriers have two 500 MW reactors. As a comparison, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station outside Phoenix has three 1.2 GW reactors.

OUWxGuesser
6/18/2008, 10:49 PM
Just put solar panels on the roofs of buildings. Solar panels, meet Mr. baseball size hail. Weeeee

def_lazer_fc
6/18/2008, 10:54 PM
that probably wouldn't be that hard to get around. solar panels? meet plexiglass covering. or something. we have enough smart people in this country that this issue shouldn't be a problem.

Tulsa_Fireman
6/18/2008, 11:01 PM
So now we get to penalize property owners for not bolting a gigantic piece of plastic to their house or business?

Kiss my foot. It's mine to do with what I want, and bolting a gigantic piece of plastic to the roof by federal mandate is right up there on the list with getting brown nosed and drinking pee.

Jimminy Crimson
6/19/2008, 12:18 AM
Nuclear is the way to go. Cut all the red tape and let 'em build.

It's stupid not to.

OklahomaTuba
6/19/2008, 11:32 AM
The EnviroNazi's will never let this happen. They created this energy mess, and see no need to fix it even if it drives the global economy into the ground.

I wonder how many nuke plants Al Gore will need just for his own energy usage???

r5TPsooner
6/19/2008, 12:18 PM
The EnviroNazi's will never let this happen. They created this energy mess, and see no need to fix it even if it drives the global economy into the ground.

I wonder how many nuke plants Al Gore will need just for his own energy usage???


One for each private jet he owns, so I'd say at least two.:D

badger
6/19/2008, 12:33 PM
This is why our country's so great - varying opinions that lead to the best solutions. Sure, businesses would love to expand all over our forests and pollute our lakes, but there's also people out there that will fight tooth and nail to ensure that no businesses are built anywhere, let along near lakes and trees. The happy medium with be businesses with environmental regulations :D

The second that either side has too much control, we will either have no businesses and the high employment and happy critters with non-polluted lakes, or too many businesses with smog-filled skies. This is why it is important to hear out both sides to ensure the best solution to every situation.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is another reason to vote for McCain during this era of Senate and Congress controlled by Democrats. We did not prosper under Bill Clinton because of Bill Clinton - we prospered because of a divided leadership team - a Democratic president and a Republican Congress.

Discuss?

JohnnyMack
6/19/2008, 12:39 PM
This is why our country's so great - varying opinions that lead to the best solutions. Sure, businesses would love to expand all over our forests and pollute our lakes, but there's also people out there that will fight tooth and nail to ensure that no businesses are built anywhere, let along near lakes and trees. The happy medium with be businesses with environmental regulations :D

The second that either side has too much control, we will either have no businesses and the high employment and happy critters with non-polluted lakes, or too many businesses with smog-filled skies. This is why it is important to hear out both sides to ensure the best solution to every situation.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is another reason to vote for McCain during this era of Senate and Congress controlled by Democrats. We did not prosper under Bill Clinton because of Bill Clinton - we prospered because of a divided leadership team - a Democratic president and a Republican Congress.

Discuss?

He can barely muster support in his own party much less trying to get anything accomplished with a Senate that's rooting for the other team.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/19/2008, 12:58 PM
IMO this election will be about Obama-an up or down vote. McCain could get lucky if enough people are scared sh*tless and/or PO'd enough about Barry,

Pricetag
6/19/2008, 01:23 PM
Why even bother to vote?
A vote that does not elect a candidate is not a wasted vote. If every person who complained about how both sides are crap actually nutted up at the ballot box and voted for someone else, they might change their ways. The problem is that most people wuss out in the end and give their vote to one side or the other. Why would they be motivated to produce anything other than the parade of chumps we've seen for the past couple of decades? They're going to get the votes anyway.

mdklatt
6/19/2008, 01:26 PM
A vote that does not elect a candidate is not a wasted vote.

It is in Oklahoma. Screw the Red and Blue states, we need more Purple states.

badger
6/19/2008, 01:58 PM
Did you ever think of who was paying for that tax cut?

Why is it wrong for people to vote for the Democrat who promises to put more money in their pocket when that money comes from other tax payers now, but it's not wrong for people to vote for the Republican who promises to put more money in their pocket when that money comes from other tax payers in the future, with interest? I guess it's only pandering when somebody else falls for it.

I never adequately responded to this.

We had a surplus at the time of the tax cuts, so I don't see what the issue is in regards to your claim to pandering.

This was not about pandering to any particular group - it was about doing the right thing. Like I said, this income bracket is one that is on minimum wage full time. This was a place that you don't want to spend the rest of your life in, and every time I return the guy who said "Don't ever get married and don't have kids" still works there about five years later.

These are people that want to earn their money, not receive a government handout through welfare or economic stimulus packages. However, it is frustrating to work for your money and see so little up it on payday.

We've all been in that situation (and if you haven't, you don't get a vote, lol) where you work hard and earn a low wage in return at some point in our lives. Mine happened to be during the college years. Some people are still there, some people will be there later, and still others have moved on to higher wage jobs.

However, for the sake of those that want to earn their way to financial stability rather than ask for government handouts, it is best to reward the working class, right?

Now, I'm not saying you have to agree with why I voted the way I did. I fully expect all Democrats out there to fully disagree with me, as Kerry did in his "irresponsible tax cuts" remarks. However, I had my reason for voting the way I did, just as you did. And on top of that, it was a good reason. It wasn't because Kerry tossed his medals/ribbons/whatever back at the White House to protest the war, it wasn't because he turned his back on the Swift Boaters through Congressional hearings, nor was it because his wife was a ketchup queen that wants us to "shove it!" No, I did it because I saw a tangible difference between administrations.

I won't be voting for McCain because he has the best teleivison ads, nor because Obama's wife said she wasn't proud of America until recently, nor because Obama has a nasty mouthed preacher or doesn't wear an American flag pin on his heart. I'm going to try to find a real, solid issue and a strong reason to cast my vote one way or the other.

mdklatt
6/19/2008, 02:14 PM
We had a surplus at the time of the tax cuts, so I don't see what the issue is in regards to your claim to pandering.




Yeah, I forgot about. You are correct, that was a different situation than what we have now.


You know what? I'm wrong again. Actually, I was only wrong the second time--I was right at first to call it a pander. There is no such thing as a surplus when you're in debt up to your eyeballs. If you have extra money laying around at the end of the month, the smart thing to do is to pay down your debt.

OklahomaRed
6/19/2008, 02:36 PM
John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.

It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war.

The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home

OklahomaRed
6/19/2008, 02:38 PM
Border Security
and Immigration Reform

I have always believed that our border must be secure and that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to ensure that it is secure. If we have learned anything from the recent immigration debate, it is that Americans have little trust that their government will honor a pledge to do the things necessary to make the border secure.

As president, I will secure the border. I will restore the trust Americans should have in the basic competency of their government. A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry.

But a secure border will contribute to addressing our immigration problem most effectively if we also:

Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America who reject the siren call of authoritarians like Hugo Chavez, support freedom and democracy, and seek strong domestic economies with abundant economic opportunities for their citizens.

Recognize the importance of pro-growth policies -- keeping government spending in check, holding down taxes, and cutting unnecessary regulatory burdens -- so American businesses can hire and pay the best.

Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market to keep employers in business and our economy on top. It should provide skilled Americans and immigrants with opportunity. Our education system should ensure skills for our younger workers, and our retraining and assistance programs for displaced workers must be modernized so they can pursue those opportunities

Recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population, which includes learning English, American history and civics, and respecting the values of a democratic society.

Recognize that America will always be that "shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism.

Border security and our failed immigration system are more examples of an ailing Washington culture in need of reform to regain the trust of Americans. In too many areas -- from immigration and pork barrel spending to Social Security, health care, energy security and tax relief -- business-as-usual politics prevents addressing the important challenges facing our nation.

OklahomaRed
6/19/2008, 02:40 PM
One more - don't vote with your gut - vote with you head? :D


John McCain Will Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families. John McCain will permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) – a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families. Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year. Under McCain's plan, a middle class family with children set to pay the AMT will save an average of over $2,700 – a real tax cut for working families.

John McCain Will Double The Personal Exemption For Dependents. John McCain believes the tax code should be less of a burden on those, whether they are mothers and fathers or single parents, who are trying to raise a family. He proposes to raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000.

Pro-Growth Tax Policy:

John McCain Will Keep Tax Rates Low. Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. They create the ultimate job security – a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission.

John McCain Will Maintain The Current Income And Investment Tax Rates And Fight The Democrats' Plans For A Crippling Tax Increase In 2011. Left to their devices, Democrats will impose a massive $100 billion tax hike, almost $700 per taxpayer every year. John McCain has also long sought permanent and immediate reform of the estate tax, and supports raising the exemption from taxation on estates up to $10 million while cutting the tax rate to 15 percent.

John McCain Will Make It Harder To Raise Taxes. John McCain believes it should require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes.

John McCain Will Reward Saving, Investment And Risk-Taking. Low taxes on dividends and capital gains promote saving, channel investment dollars to innovative, high-value uses and not wasteful financial planning. John McCain will keep the current rates on dividends and capital gains and fight anti-growth efforts by Democrats.

John McCain Will Improve Business Investment Incentives. John McCain proposes to permit corporations to immediately deduct the cost of equipment investment, providing a valuable pro-growth investment incentive. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies.

badger
6/19/2008, 02:48 PM
You know what? I'm wrong again. Actually, I was only wrong the second time--I was right at first to call it a pander. There is no such thing as a surplus when you're in debt up to your eyeballs. If you have extra money laying around at the end of the month, the smart thing to do is to pay down your debt.

Both Al Gore and George W. Bush presented plans that would include both tax cuts and paying off the national debt. Obviously, there is no surplus great enough to pay off all debt, so they simply chose to invest part of the surplus in American consumers through tax cuts. I would say their immediate returns were good on that front :D

"Surplus" is the opposite of "deficit" and neither should be confused with debt and its conserve, savings.

So, once again, both candidates were "pandering" to the same people. It's just that W. actually had a plan that considered the working class more.

mdklatt
6/19/2008, 02:54 PM
"Surplus" is the opposite of "deficit" and neither should be confused with debt and its conserve, savings.


However you define it, we sure as hell don't have a surplus now. Instead we have rapidly growing debt which is helping to strangle the value of the dollar. Once again, instant gratification has bitten us in the ***.

achiro
6/19/2008, 03:46 PM
However you define it, we sure as hell don't have a surplus now. Instead we have rapidly growing debt which is helping to strangle the value of the dollar. Once again, instant gratification has bitten us in the ***.

So you are looking at the long term by bitching about the current value of the dollar?
Whether you will admit it or not the Dow is higher now than when Bush took office. Only a moron would say that the dow will always be in an upswing.

Wars cost money.

mdklatt
6/19/2008, 04:00 PM
Whether you will admit it or not the Dow is higher now than when Bush took office. Only a moron would say that the dow will always be in an upswing.


Who said anything about the Dow? That's not the end-all of economic indicators. Have you been drinking the Tuba kool-aid that the economy is in great shape right now?

Since you brought it up, for which presidents wasn't the Dow higher at the end of their term than the beginning? That's not much of an accomplishment.



Wars cost money.

Which is why it's stupid to cut taxes while we're fighting one. I could be wrong, but I think the majority of the debt is due to increased spending other than for Iraq and Afghanistan. Including one of the largest entitlement programs since the New Deal, aka the Medicaire prescription drug program.

achiro
6/19/2008, 04:16 PM
Who said anything about the Dow? That's not the end-all of economic indicators. Have you been drinking the Tuba kool-aid that the economy is in great shape right now?
No but its a pretty good look into whats going on. As far as tuba? Anyway, I know that I am in a MUCH better place than I was 8 years ago and for me thats important.







Which is why it's stupid to cut taxes while we're fighting one. I could be wrong, but I think the majority of the debt is due to increased spending other than for Iraq and Afghanistan. Including one of the largest entitlement programs since the New Deal, aka the Medicaire prescription drug program.
Do you understand the double talk in this statement?
So why should taxes be raised when in your own words its not because of the war, its because of guberment spendin.

I don't know you but I would be real curious what kind of work you do and in which current tax bracket you reside.

Ike
6/19/2008, 04:24 PM
I'm all for wind and solar, even over nuclear for obvious reasons. I just have no idea how many square miles of land you would have to occupy with wind turbines or solar panels to account for one nuclear power plant.

The latest number I heard (and this was approximately 2 year ago) for powering the entire US which assumes not just regular power but also assuming hydrogen cars and the energy needed for electrolysis to get H2 out of water (which requires twice as much energy in as we'd get out, roughly) is that we'd need 10,000 square miles of current technologly level solar collectors...if we were just relying on solar power. That would be roughly a box, 100 miles on either side. To put that into some perspective, this country currently has about 60,000 square miles of roads.

yermom
6/19/2008, 04:26 PM
No but its a pretty good look into whats going on. As far as tuba? Anyway, I know that I am in a MUCH better place than I was 8 years ago and for me thats important.






Do you understand the double talk in this statement?
So why should taxes be raised when in your own words its not because of the war, its because of guberment spendin.

I don't know you but I would be real curious what kind of work you do and in which current tax bracket you reside.

a little internet searching could yield that answer, lol

but you know, there are other people than you in the economy

luckily they can't outsourse fake doctors in India ;)

achiro
6/19/2008, 04:52 PM
a little internet searching could yield that answer, lol Remember, it's all about me and that would take effort. I figure its something in education or government though.


but you know, there are other people than you in the economy

None of them matter. :D

mdklatt
6/19/2008, 04:58 PM
Anyway, I know that I am in a MUCH better place than I was 8 years ago and for me thats important.

Did you accomplish that by piling up debt that your kids are going to pay for? That's what the government is doing. If I get a cash advance on my credit card, do I really have more money?





Do you understand the double talk in this statement?
So why should taxes be raised when in your own words its not because of the war, its because of guberment spendin.


War IS guberment spendin. We could have reduced spending to pay for the war, or we could have raised taxes. The Republican controlled government did neither. They put it on the credit card, along with every other pork barrel project and entitlement program the party of "fiscal responsibility" gave us between 2001 and 2006.

Scott D
6/19/2008, 05:05 PM
No but its a pretty good look into whats going on. As far as tuba? Anyway, I know that I am in a MUCH better place than I was 8 years ago and for me thats important.






Do you understand the double talk in this statement?
So why should taxes be raised when in your own words its not because of the war, its because of guberment spendin.

I don't know you but I would be real curious what kind of work you do and in which current tax bracket you reside.

you're only in a better place now than 8 years ago because more people have had their backs walked on by the financially elite ;)

OklahomaTuba
6/19/2008, 05:06 PM
War IS guberment spendin. We could have reduced spending to pay for the war, or we could have raised taxes. The Republican controlled government did neither.

Donks have had the purse strings for a year now. So much for all that change.

Besides, the war spending and the reduced taxes were both legit as they kept the nation safe from more attacks and helped stimulate substantial economic growth up until this year.

Its the other spending that should have been cut back and wasn't.

mdklatt
6/19/2008, 05:12 PM
Donks have had the purse strings for a year now. So much for all that change.

Well no ****. You know they're not going to cut back spending. They at least attempt to pay for it. If our only two choices are going to be tax and spend and borrow and spend, I'd prefer tax and spend. You're never going to cut government spending as long as the Republicans keep trying to sell their less-is-more Laffer Curve mumbo jumbo.



Besides, the war spending and the reduced taxes were both legit as they kept the nation safe from more attacks and helped stimulate substantial economic growth up until this year.


Yep, the bill always comes due.



Its the other spending that should have been cut back and wasn't.

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.

SicEmBaylor
6/19/2008, 05:28 PM
Well no ****. You know they're not going to cut back spending. They at least attempt to pay for it. If our only two choices are going to be tax and spend and borrow and spend, I'd prefer tax and spend. You're never going to cut government spending as long as the Republicans keep trying to sell their less-is-more Laffer Curve mumbo jumbo.

To be fair, you're saddling Laffer with undeserved responsibility for the deficit. I personally accept his model, but don't blame him for the deficit or runaway spending. Decreasing taxes does stimulate the economy which in turn does bring more revenue to the government, but the problem has been that the rate of government spending has increased so much that it has outstripped the economy's ability to sustain it.

I'm not doing a great job of explaining my point here, but what I'm trying to get across is that a stimulated economy and an increase in tax revenue is only beneficial when the spending isn't increasing more than the stimulus.

I think that's the situation we've been in with the GOP in control. I understand and I'm sympathetic to your point but we can't cover massive government spending with tax increases forever. It does eventually get to the point where it stifles the economy, but at the same time you can't cut taxes while increasing spending either. Whatever side you fall on, the only logical step that works in all scenarios is to cut spending which makes increased tax rates unnecessary.

mdklatt
6/19/2008, 05:42 PM
Decreasing taxes does stimulate the economy which in turn does bring more revenue to the government

Only if you're past the inflection point. The problem is that we have no fricking idea where the inflection point is, and in the real world it is impossible to know. The Laffer curve is a hypothetical construct.

OklahomaTuba
6/19/2008, 05:50 PM
Yep, the bill always comes due.

SO you think the current economic slowdown is because taxes are too low and spending is too high??

Are you F'n serious?????

mdklatt
6/19/2008, 05:52 PM
[quote=mdklatt;2320522]

Yep, the bill always comes due.
[quote]
SO you think the current economic slowdown is because taxes are too low and spending is too high??

Are you F'n serious?????

It's due in part to the deficit, which yes, is due to some combination of too much spending and not enough revenue.

Ike
6/19/2008, 06:09 PM
Only if you're past the inflection point. The problem is that we have no fricking idea where the inflection point is, and in the real world it is impossible to know. The Laffer curve is a hypothetical construct.

Can anyone even plot a believable Laffer Curve? One that can actually be used to make a prediction, and then tested?

yermom
6/19/2008, 06:10 PM
i'm laffing

mdklatt
6/19/2008, 06:17 PM
Can anyone even plot a believable Laffer Curve?

Neo-Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neo-Laffer-Curve.svg)

SanJoaquinSooner
6/19/2008, 09:56 PM
I believe in freedom.

McCain supports the Colombian Free Trade Pact, whereas Obama presently does not.