|
Mccain-Palin 08! (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Capitalizt |
a hot VP isn't enough to make me vote for this crazy old man..
 |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
She would definitely get it in the puppet hole.
Anyways, does he think all the Hilary voters will just flock to him now? lol
edit: she looks like Jennifer Coolidge a bit no?
 |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
for sake Q5.
is it too difficult to provide at least a name for those of us not in the know?
not that i expect you to care about any foreign opinion! :p :D |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
Both threads have been merged, by the way. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
a hot VP isn't enough to make me vote for this crazy old man..
|
That picture is creepy on so many levels.
It's like he is a 2 year old hugging daddy. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
a hot VP isn't enough to make me vote for this crazy old man..
 |
I must say, it surprises me that you support Obama, regardless of what you think of McCain. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I must say, it surprises me that you support Obama, regardless of what you think of McCain. |
I don't actually support Obama. I think his economic policies are disastrous, but I'll probably be voting dem because I can't stand what the republican party has become. I consider myself a traditional conservative...for limited government, non-intervention etc. The current republicans completely against these ideas. The have become RADICALS who have no problem using the power of government to shove their morality down our throats at home and to reshape the world with military force abroad. Mccain just seems very old fashioned and a little senile to me. Some of his views are downright dangerous and I can't bring myself to vote for him or any other Bush-clone republican. Their party needs a devastating loss if they are ever going to wake up and realize what a huge mistake they've made in following Dubya and the neocons down this path.
As for Obama...I like that he's a newbie to the political scene. We don't need another person who has spent a lifetime in Washington. Obama strikes me as more open-minded than Mccain...willing to take a fresh look at things, to learn and listen to different viewpoints, and to accept that he could be wrong on certain issues. Mccain on the other hand seems stuck in his old ways, and locked into the party line 95% of the time. He has been in power so long that he thinks he has the skill to manage everything himself. He just seems much more cocky, combative, and close-minded than Obama..and that is exactly what we DON'T need in a president right now. We need a major course change even if the new course isn't perfect. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| It amazes me the Mccain camp has harped on experience to run the country and this old man is on his death bed and this chic will be that close to running this country? |
|
|
| Zild |
| LOL have to love the way the GOP picks their females. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by xKaoSx
It amazes me the Mccain camp has harped on experience to run the country and this old man is on his death bed and this chic will be that close to running this country? |
She has over 7 years of executive experience. Good article discussing risk and reward here:
"Instead of a safe choice, such as closest runner-up Mitt Romney or genial Everyman Tim Pawlenty, McCain took some risk with a relative newcomer to national politics. Palin will inject risk, excitement, controversy, and an unexpected historic note to the Republican convention.
First, though, let’s assess the risk. Palin has served less than two years as Governor of Alaska, which tends to eat into the experience message on which McCain has relied thus far. At 44, she’s younger than Barack Obama by three years. She has served as a mayor and as the Ethics Commissioner on the state board regulating oil and naturalk gas, for a total of eight years political experience before her election as governor. That’s also less than Obama has, with seven years in the Illinois legislature and three in the US Senate.
However, the nature of the experience couldn’t be more different. Palin spent her entire political career crusading against the political machine that rules Alaska — which exists in her own Republican party. She blew the whistle on the state GOP chair, who had abused his power on the same commission to conduct party business. Obama, in contrast, talked a great deal about reform in Chicago but never challenged the party machine, preferring to take an easy ride as a protegé of Richard Daley instead.
Palin has no formal foreign-policy experience, which puts her at a disadvantage to Joe Biden. However, in nineteen months as governor, she certainly has had more practical experience in diplomacy than Biden or Obama have ever seen. She runs the only American state bordered only by two foreign countries, one of which has increasingly grown hostile to the US again, Russia.
And let’s face it — Team Obama can hardly attack Palin for a lack of foreign-policy experience. Obama has none at all, and neither Obama or Biden have any executive experience. Palin has almost over seven years of executive experience.
Politically, this puts Obama in a very tough position. The Democrats had prepared to launch a full assault on McCain’s running mate, but having Palin as a target creates one large headache. If they go after her like they went after Hillary Clinton, Obama risks alienating women all over again. If they don’t go after her like they went after Hillary, he risks alienating Hillary supporters, who will see this as a sign of disrespect for Hillary.
For McCain, this gives him a boost like no other in several different ways. First, the media will eat this up. That effectively buries Obama’s acceptance speech and steals the oxygen he needs for a long-term convention bump. A Romney or Pawlenty pick would not have accomplished that.
Second, Palin will re-energize the base. She’s not just a pro-life advocate, she’s lived the issue herself. That will attract the elements of the GOP that had held McCain at a distance since the primaries and provide positive motivation for Republicans, rather than just rely on anti-Democrat sentiment to get them to the polls.
Third, and I think maybe most importantly, Palin addresses the energy issue better and more attuned to the American electorate than maybe any of the other three principals in this election. Even beyond her efforts to reform the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, she has demonstrated her independence from so-called “Big Oil” while promoting domestic production. She brings instant credibility to the ticket on energy policy, and reminds independents and centrists that the Obama-Biden ticket offers nothing but the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 years.
Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.
This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk. McCain changed the trajectory of the race today by stealing Obama’s strength and turning it against him. Obama provided that opening by picking Biden as his running mate, and McCain was smart enough to take advantage of the opening." |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I don't actually support Obama. I think his economic policies are disastrous, but I'll probably be voting dem because I can't stand what the republican party has become. I consider myself a traditional conservative...for limited government, non-intervention etc. The current republicans completely against these ideas. The have become RADICALS who have no problem using the power of government to shove their morality down our throats at home and to reshape the world with military force abroad. Mccain just seems very old fashioned and a little senile to me. Some of his views are downright dangerous and I can't bring myself to vote for him or any other Bush-clone republican. Their party needs a devastating loss if they are ever going to wake up and realize what a huge mistake they've made in following Dubya and the neocons down this path.
|
I'm certainly not that enthused about him either, though I think some of Obama's attacks and criticisms of McCain are not difficult to refute. I thought Dick Morris made some interesting points yesterday to clarify (Included within Boort's comments this morning below). Also, I think McCain gets it more in terms of needing to cut spending, not raising taxes to balance the budget. He clearly has a willingness to go against the party (despite Obama's thin claims of him voting with Bush 90% of the time or being Bush II). I simply don't trust Obama--he has minimal experience and some shady dealings which don't make him that much better than Bush in that regard. He clearly has a poor understanding of economics and hopefully he would seek out the right advisers on this matter.
| quote: | The Obama campaign is dedicated to the idea of chaining John McCain to George Bush. Once again last night we heard that bit about McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time. That line works because the dumb masses don't know any better. Has it occurred to you that George Bush doesn't have a vote in the Senate? So just how do you measure the percentage of times that McCain is voting "with" the president? Well, perhaps you could measure the number of times that a Senator votes with the Republican members. Ahhh ... but remember, as our Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree has told us many times, most Senate votes are unanimous. This would mean that the only way not to "vote with the president" would be not to vote at all. As Dick Morris wrote: "The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president."
Morris also points out a series of important issues on which Bush and McCain did not agree:
* McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush resisted and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
* McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
* McCain went with Joe Lieberman on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
* McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
* McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
* McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican senators oppose.
* McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
* After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
* McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).
Using the same methodology you would probably find that most Democrat senators also voted with Bush 90% of the time.
Now here's one part of the Obama speech that was particularly clever. As you know, we've been talking about Obama's plan to raise taxes on the very people, small businessmen and women, who are providing about 80% of the new jobs our economy is producing. Obama's response last night was to say that "I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow."
Here, again, is where the ignorance of the American voter comes into play. I can just hear some of my listeners now: "That Neal Boortz said that Obama was going to raise taxes these small businessmen. Obama said he is going to eliminate him. There! I knew it! Boortz is a liar!"
Pay attention now. Obama said he was going to eliminate capital gains taxes. These small businessmen generally don't pay capital gains taxes. They pay income taxes. Obama's plan is to raise the income taxes on these entrepreneurs. Telling the American people that he will cut their capital gains taxes is simply a charade; a charade the uneducated will buy.
Did you hear Obama last night say that McCain describes middle class as someone making less than $5 million dollars a year? Now you may laugh at that idea and think it absurd. Trust me ... there are hundreds of thousands of Obama voters out there who will take that seriously; who will think that McCain thinks that someone making $4,500,000 a year is middle class. Tell me, is that playing on the stupidity of the American people?
Then there's Obama's line about the Republicans and McCain not proposing one penny of tax relief for over 100 million Americans. Sounds good. But if you're educated; if you know the statistics; if you pay attention you will know that the bottom 50% of income earners in this country pay only about 3% of all individual income taxes collected by the federal government. When you get to the bottom 40% that percentage figures drops to zero. Now just what is our current population figure? Around 300 million or so? That would bean that about 120 million Americans have no federal income tax liability at all. Yet there's Obama saying that McCain is offering no tax relief to these people. Relief from what?
There was another line in Obama's speech that is very typical of far-left politicians. Obama seems to feel those with higher incomes in this country have not earned their way. Whatever the wealthy have was given to them, not earned. So Obama tells the adoring crowd that Republicans want to "Give more and more to those with the most, and hope that prosperity will trickle down to the rest." As I said, this is a standard Democrat theme. Wealthy people didn't earn what they have, it was given to them. And since it was given to them, there's nothing really all that wrong with taking more and more of it away from them ... just to even things out a bit. Remember, please, that Obama flat-out said that he wants to raise taxes on the rich not to bring in increased government revenues, but to make things more "fair."
This idea that whatever wealthy or successful people have was given to them is reflected in the idea that people should "give back." Charity isn't recognized for what it is; one individual giving some of what they have earned to another in need. No .. it's just someone giving back some of the stuff that was given to them. Accomplishment and the concept of earning seems to have no place in Democrat rhetoric.
As I was trying to wrap up these notes this morning a Wal-Mart ad came on television. It seems that you can go to some Wal-Marts and get a prescription for one of 300 medications filled for just four dollars. That's for a 30-day supply. If you want a 90-day supply it will cost you ten bucks. There can't be one of you out there who could possibly think that the government could provide these drugs to you for the same price. Yet Obama told us last night that the private sector simply cannot handle our health care needs. |
|
|
|
| xKaoSx |
Palin has focused on energy and natural resources policy during her short stint in office, and she is known for her support of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, a position opposed by McCain but supported by many grass-roots Republicans.
Her husband is Todd Palin, an oil production operator on Alaska's North Slope.
Go Figure :P |
|
|
|
|
