The McCain Thread

Who will be McCain's runningmate?

  • Mitt Romney (former Governor of Massachussets)

  • Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas)

  • Rudy Giuliani (former mayor New York)

  • Charlie Christ (current governor of Florida)

  • Fred Thompson (former US Senator of Tennessee)

  • Condaleeza Rice (Secretary of State)

  • Colin Powell (former Secretary of State)

  • JC Watts (former Republican chairman of Republican House)

  • Rob Portman (Director of Office of Management and Budget)

  • Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota)

  • Bobby Jindal (Governor of Lousiana)

  • Mark Sanford (Governor of South Carolina)

  • Lindsey Graham (US Senator of South Carolina)

  • Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska)

  • Kay Hutchinson (US Senator of Texas)

  • John Thune (US Senator of South Dakota)

  • Haley Barbour (Governor of Mississippi)

  • Marsha Blackburn (US Tenessee Representative)

  • Joseph Lieberman (US Senator of Connecticut)

  • Sonny Perdue (Governor of Georgia)

  • George Allen (former US Senator of Virginia)

  • Matt Blunt (Governor of Missouri)

  • some other US Senator, congressman

  • some other Governor

  • some dark horse like Dick Cheney


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moot point, they also create most of the jobs overseas, which is what's been happening. The idea of "trickle down economics" is sound if you assume America is some isolated system, but it isn't. People's desire to make money is not stiffled by taxes all that much, that is a myth the Republicans like to spout off so they can curry favor with their rich friends. The truth is almost any millionaire is going to create jobs irregardless of how much money we cut from his taxes; he/she can't help it, that's how he got rich in the first place. The fact of the matter is, in today's interglobal economy tax breaks for the lower income brackets is actually what promotes the enconomy. Poor people spend a larger precentage of their income than anyone in the top 2%, giving them more money means it's automatically coming back to our economy in the form of buying power. This idiotic belief that all rich people are naturally altruistic enough to "create jobs" and "stimulate our economy" is lunacy. Most rich people will only save or send that money elsewhere.

Even if we assume the rich create 4,000,000 jobs overseas to only 4,000 at home - that is still 4,000 jobs a middle class person does not create.

The question, however, then becomes - how do we make it so that America is a better alternative than overseas? We need to offer major tax breaks for those that put their companies in America. FairTax would help this.
 
Even if we assume the rich create 4,000,000 jobs overseas to only 4,000 at home - that is still 4,000 jobs a middle class person does not create.

The question, however, then becomes - how do we make it so that America is a better alternative than overseas? We need to offer major tax breaks for those that put their companies in America. FairTax would help this.[/I]



Right on, FairTax!! Zero taxation for businesses would serve as a very strong incentive to both bring and keep jobs in the States. :up:
 
Which they too often do at the direct expense of the vast majority of people who are not wealthy, which is why it is a bad thing. I mean, unless you enjoy being robbed? I, personally, do not.

Do you believe there is a fixed amount of wealth? It sounds like you do, since the above post would seem to imply that the rich are rich at the expense of the poor.













There's not a fixed amount of wealth.
 
Those that saw the prosperity of the 90s. A tax code that sees the return and strengthening of the middle class.

But it was the economic policies of the 90's that led to the recession at the start of the 21st century.
 
So what led to the recession at the beginning of the 90s? I mean, we had 12 years of Republican policies, 8 years of Republican-lite policies, then another eight years of Republican policies. We had recessions at the beginning of the nineties, the beginning of the 2000s and now. How many of these can we blame on the Democrat sandwiched between Republicans?
 
But it was the economic policies of the 90's that led to the recession at the start of the 21st century.

And the policies of the 1980s led to the recession at the end of the twentieth century, and now that they've been reintroduced to our society, we're on the brink of another recession... so really each side has its economic failures... from Reagan to Clinton to Bush...
 
And the policies of the 1980s led to the recession at the end of the twentieth century, and now that they've been reintroduced to our society, we're on the brink of another recession... so really each side has its economic failures... from Reagan to Clinton to Bush...

I agree.
 
Those that saw the prosperity of the 90s. A tax code that sees the return and strengthening of the middle class.

The rates may have seen the prosperity of the 90s, but they hardly were the reason for it. The explosion of the internet economy and the resulting internet "bubble" from it that burst in 2000 had far more of an impact on our economy during those years.

Besides, raising income tax rates would actually lower tax revenue (lowering tax rates increased revenue--it happened with Kennedy, with Reagan, and with W). So, how does 1) hurting citizens by taking more out of their pockets and 2) hurting government by reducing revenue actually help anything?
 
Even if we assume the rich create 4,000,000 jobs overseas to only 4,000 at home - that is still 4,000 jobs a middle class person does not create.

The question, however, then becomes - how do we make it so that America is a better alternative than overseas? We need to offer major tax breaks for those that put their companies in America. FairTax would help this.
:up:
 
OK since no one wants to talk about this in the Obama thread I think I'll bring it over here and see if I get any answers.

John McCains foreign policy statements... day by day are trully disturbing.

I'm beggining to wonder why it is anyone thinks this mans take on the middle east is at all acceptable.

our economy is in shambles for many reasons, most notably this war...

and yet... reverend wright and others are all we talk about.


everyone says they wanted to hear about policy, upwards of 80% of people say the country is on the wrong track... yet they delude themselves into continuing to think john McCain is a maverick. he has embraced many people and policies he was once known for excoriating. his latest blunder are his vetos... which was on a ban on torture and now the GI bill... when you look at his record he has voted in the area of 90-95% of the time with the bush administration...

this is certainly a race on character and not policy. if we focused on issues, specifically our foreign policy and the economy... John McCain wouldnt have nearly the grip he does... and Obama wouldnt be nearly as affected by this crap.

I ask you... honestly,

what does reverend wright MEAN??

how is what he said going to play out in the whitehouse?? answer me that.... and stop saying he has to answer for his paster and the electorate should consider this unless you can point to how this is going to play out into policy???

while you imagine drinking beer with a more socially amicable president who seems more in line with your social ethos, remember what happened the last time we voted for someone because they didnt seem like an elitist... they wanted to be tough on terrorism... without having a trully comprehensive plan other than attackin them... you know... ATTACK! :whatever: he didnt even get tough on terrorists, he basically ignored them for Iraq... and has emboldened them...

:huh:

How does Obamas pastor and the fragile connections with controversial figures (which are tenuous at best...) explain any of his actions when he takes office... exactly what are you afraid he is going to do with this exposure? be less apt to get into pre-emptive wars? be less apt to inflame the fanatics of the middle east... work towards equality in america??

How does this matter on any level of policy?

and Exactly how are you reconsiling your vote against these realities? people are free to vote for who they want to but if its going to be on character then they should just state it so others can move on and not focus on policy when talking to them.





Cut taxes more, spend billions in Iraq... let muslims continue to get enraged by attacking hamas which was elected by a forced democracy by the US, confusing who shia and sunnis are... declaring Iran our second largest threat... who happens to be completely against al-queda... but assuring the American public that Iran is trianing Al-Qaeda ... confusing Al-Qaeda with Al-Qaeda in Iraq as opposed to who attacked us... in miring ourselves down further in the middle east at every oppuratunity rather then focus on our own economy... pakistan/afganistan... education (as other nations catch up and pass us by) and our global image...which is horrible. Economy...Energy... ECONOMY...

we are only the greatest country currently because we have a huge military.

we are not expounding the values and morals of our great grandparents, we are not showing the resolve of a wise nation... and we are passing the buck on to our children with a HUMONGUS debt, and a debilitated environment.


At some point all of this has to hit home, John McCain is brave and honorable man, but i have yet to see anything come out of his mouth that makes him intelligent enough to run this nation.

If that makes me or my candidates elititist than so be it... the president shouldnt be someone whos like us, who we could share a social moment with without feeling awkward or put off by his character or associations of faith...

he should be to damn busy to drink a beer anyway. not spend a ludicrous and record breaking amount of time away from the white house... at their ranch.

and now we are trying to reconsile why 80% or more of the american populace says we are going in the wrong direction... but John McCain offers any kind of change from the last president.

hes not running on immigration here or campaign finance reform, lets be honest... whats he going to do differently?

and how has Reverend Wright proven that Barack would do worse...?

and if wright and other character assinations bring down Obama... then ill be pushing hard for hillary, despite the fact that less independant and right leaning folks will vote for her... and she seems more cold and calculating then both obama and McCain... she at least is not some sort of hold over of loyalty to a party that is in desperate need of repair... while they float this cobbled derigible and call it anything but a leaky blimp. this guy is riding on the exhaustion of the democratic primary and nothing else... besides his bravery.

America is worth more then that, at least it should be. but i wouldnt take away a persons right to vote based on character, many of the democrats are doing that with obama... and to a lesser extand hillary. but to feel the bush administration was wrong, and we are on the wrong track... and to look to McCain and think hmm... you know what... despite his blunders and misspeaks on foriegn policy which prove hes essentially got no insight in how to effectively deal with the middle east... and the fact that hes towing the line on every major bush policy... hes soft on the economy, and has no response for education and healthcare... you know what.... by golly, hes my choice cause... well... i think i just forgot why i thought we were headed in the wrong direction.

:huh::huh:


reverend wright!!! REVEREND WRIGHT!!! Obama's sort of a Muslim!! Obama Hangs out with terrorists!!!!

obamaosamahumm_300.jpg


meanwhile our country falls further and further away from any semblance of what it once was...

ill just plaster my vehicle with american flags... that'll make up for all of this.

Now would any McCain supporter like to answer Zen's questions about McCain?
 
Frankly a lot of what Zen said sounded like rambling. He brought up a few good points but it's really diluted by the rambling.

And frankly whomever will be the next President is going to be better than Bush.
 
Hypothetically: Would voting for McCain still be your solution if he tapped Jindal?

Bobby Jindal is one of the most frightening people in American politics, and I wholeheartedly say that I will leave this country if Jindal is ever in a position to lead this country.
 
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain vowed in a speech on Wednesday to make freedom of religion a key foreign policy issue if he is elected to the White House in November.

"There is no right more fundamental to a free society than the free practice of religion," he said at Oakland University in the state of Michigan.

"Behind walls of prisons and persecuted before our very eyes in places like China, Iran, Burma, Sudan, North Korea and Saudi Arabia are tens of thousands of people whose only crime is to worship God in their own way." He added: "Whether in bilateral negotiations, or in various multinational organizations to which America belongs, I will make respect for the basic principle of religious freedom a priority in international relations."

According to McCain, no society "that denies religious freedom can ever rightly claim to be good in some other way. And no person can ever be true to any faith that believes in the dignity of all human life if they do not act out of concern for those whose dignity is assailed because of their faith."



So is he pandering the conservative base, tuning up the drums of war, or stating a genuine concern that he has? What do you think?



For the full article, click below.
McCain to make religious freedom a key foreign policy issue
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080507/pl_afp/usvoterepublicanmccain
 
All of those countries have huge problems with human rights abuses, and I will support any president's efforts to work towards ending those abuses.
 
All of those countries have huge problems with human rights abuses, and I will support any president's efforts to work towards ending those abuses.

I cannot stand these human rights abuses either Jman. Truth is, we should have been more concerned about things such as Darfur (and others) long before now. I'm just not so sure that we are really in a good position right now to do anymore saber-rattling.
 
I cannot stand these human rights abuses either Jman. Truth is, we should have been more concerned about things such as Darfur (and others) long before now. I'm just not so sure that we are really in a good position right now to do anymore saber-rattling.

I think we should be out of Iraq before we start worrying about Darfur. But I don't think he meant that we should be militarily involved in these countries. There are ways to force nations to lift these human rights abuses, such as sanctions, or other diplomatic means. So I wouldn't call it "saber-rattling" (and I consider that to be a bull **** term), but a call for us to be active on the diplomatic front to ensure that these abuses are eliminated on a global scale.
 
I think we should be out of Iraq before we start worrying about Darfur. But I don't think he meant that we should be militarily involved in these countries. There are ways to force nations to lift these human rights abuses, such as sanctions, or other diplomatic means. So I wouldn't call it "saber-rattling" (and I consider that to be a bull **** term), but a call for us to be active on the diplomatic front to ensure that these abuses are eliminated on a global scale.

I completely agree with you. And it's true, there are many ways to help end human rights abuses other than military action. I whole heartedly support any President who wants to put a focus on these issues. I just think that we are so bogged down in Iraq that it could potentially hamper any other efforts we may want to undertake. You know?
 
Regardless of our military commitments, we can still be a strong player on the diplomatic front. We need to do so, and eradicating the numerous human rights abuses in countries such as Iran and China would be the best way to do that.
 
Regardless of our military commitments, we can still be a strong player on the diplomatic front. We need to do so, and eradicating the numerous human rights abuses in countries such as Iran and China would be the best way to do that.

We just need to make sure that we return to diplomacy. Even more important, that we have a foreign policy that is not the equivalent of "bomb and ask questions later." We need to get back to what this country has been. Taking on human rights abuses around the world is the right thing to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"