Who'll be the better president?

[farlex85]

I believe it's this here pile of crap and bullshit.

Yeah a bit of bullocks to be sure. Pretty sappy there. Still, it's not that bad, he's not outright lying or anything, and the man sure can deliver a poignant speech (albeit perhaps meaningless). And the message for change isn't just a slogan. You may think his methods misguided, but it doesn't change the fact that he and those around him seem to believe that he is indeed going to change things.

 

[das müffin mann]

that actually is a very effective closing argument

if only McCain could deliver a decent speech...

granted it still is a strategy to get your vote

have a link to the rest of the speech?

 

[Bigjohn]

Yeah a bit of bullocks to be sure. Pretty sappy there. Still, it's not that bad, he's not outright lying or anything, and the man sure can deliver a poignant speech (albeit perhaps meaningless). And the message for change isn't just a slogan. You may think his methods misguided, but it doesn't change the fact that he and those around him seem to believe that he is indeed going to change things.

Blowing up New York is change too, but is that good?
Bringing Socialism -- completely in conflict with the US Constitution -- is just about as bad.

 

[farlex85]

Blowing up New York is change too, but is that good?
Bringing Socialism -- completely in conflict with the US Constitution -- is just about as bad.

I doubt many away from your particular political spectrum would agree w/ that statement. Try to get out of that sort of one-dimensional thinking though, it is unlikely to get anywhere. I never can figure out how someone can end up so entirely on one side of the coin to be completely ignorant of the other's merits. It is, after all, the same coin (I'm sorry, I can't help getting a little philosophically abstract sometimes, seems coherent enough though ).

 

[Bigjohn]

I doubt many away from your particular political spectrum would agree w/ that statement. Try to get out of that sort of one-dimensional thinking though, it is unlikely to get anywhere. I never can figure out how someone can end up so entirely on one side of the coin to be completely ignorant of the other's merits. It is, after all, the same coin (I'm sorry, I can't help getting a little philosophically abstract sometimes, seems coherent enough though ).

No where in the constituion does it say that the government can take money from one group in the public and create an entitlement class in another that is then beholden to the government for their livelyhood - thereby buying the vote in perpetuity...

 

[phanbuey]

No where in the constituion does it say that the government can take money from one group in the public and create an entitlement class in another that is then beholden to the government for their livelyhood - thereby buying the vote in perpetuity...

Article 2 of the constitution says the government can tax as is decided in congress. So technically, if they wanted to pass a bill that would create an entitlement class ad buy the vote in perpetuity (through tax policy), and it got passed... then yes, according to the constituion the government can then take all ur money and give it to the poor (for whatever reason).

of course the real ritch dont really pay the full tax, since they have tons of tax shelters for their money, and can hire clever attourneys/accountants to avoid giving anything to the government so in the end its a bit of a moot point.

 

[farlex85]

No where in the constituion does it say that the government can take money from one group in the public and create an entitlement class in another that is then beholden to the government for their livelyhood - thereby buying the vote in perpetuity...

That wasn't really in any way a response to what I said, but yes I am aware you are against higher taxes for the top tax brackets, on as you perceive it a constitutional basis. We've covered that one.

Article 2 of the constitution says the government can tax as is decided in congress. So technically, if they wanted to pass a bill that would create an entitlement class ad buy the vote in perpetuity (through tax policy), and it got passed... then yes, according to the constituion the government can then take all ur money and give it to the poor (for whatever reason).

of course the real ritch dont really pay the full tax, since they have tons of tax shelters for their money, and can hire clever attourneys/accountants to avoid giving anything to the government so in the end its a bit of a moot point.

It actually seems to be Article I Section VIII that initially covers tax levying by the legislative branch, and in fact they are to be "uniform throughout the United States." At least on pretty much all taxes except income taxes, which are in fact not presented under this requirement, although apparently are under another requirement (census population), which is bypassed by the 16th amendment. So yeah, technically Obama's sort of taxation actually is constitutional it would seem to me (at least under the power of the 16th amendment), more so than current sales tax and certain industry taxes. Fair tax is better though. But article II covers the executive branch it would seem. And that's another thing, don't worry so much about Obama's tax proposals. It is a congressional decision, so trust the government your wonderful constitution set up.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Article 2 of the constitution says the government can tax as is decided in congress. So technically, if they wanted to pass a bill that would create an entitlement class ad buy the vote in perpetuity (through tax policy), and it got passed... then yes, according to the constituion the government can then take all ur money and give it to the poor (for whatever reason).

of course the real ritch dont really pay the full tax, since they have tons of tax shelters for their money, and can hire clever attourneys/accountants to avoid giving anything to the government so in the end its a bit of a moot point.

It's argued if the income tax is even Constitutional because it conflicts with the word "excise:"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excise

So the original drafting of the Constitution did not permit income tax (only taxing goods flowing between states and international tariffs) and the 16th Amendment overrules the original basically by declaring income tax as an excise tax.

...more so than current sales tax and certain industry taxes. Fair tax is better though. But article II covers the executive branch it would seem. And that's another thing, don't worry so much about Obama's tax proposals. It is a congressional decision, so trust the government your wonderful constitution set up.

All sales taxes are levied by the states.

If the Senate becomes 60% majority, anything Obama, Pelosi, and Reid want will pretty much be write-ins. If you think we've already seen bad spending practices...you ain't seen nothing yet. :|


Oh, and remember, Obama already proved he can't be trusted:
Commentary: Obama breaks promise on campaign finance

Obama is a hypocrite.

 

[SK-1]

What is up with this supposed tape the LA Times has from 03' of a party with Obama, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalaidi (Spelling?) the ex-PLO leader chumming it up?

 

[SK-1]

Anyone comment on Obamas "hail mary" speech today? All about feel good, feel good, let me make you feel good... and not a thing about the FACTS...

And what about rubbing elbows with the common folk? After "Joe the Plumber, Obama has been kept to reading the Teleprompter

 

[FordGT90Concept]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2U4NTZmNGE4YmFmMmFhZDhiZDIyMGIxOTkyZGNlMDQ=

Google found that...

 

[farlex85]

It's argued if the income tax is even Constitutional because it conflicts with the word "excise:"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excise

So the original drafting of the Constitution did not permit income tax (only taxing goods flowing between states and international tariffs) and the 16th Amendment overrules the original basically by declaring income tax as an excise tax.



All sales taxes are levied by the states.

If the Senate becomes 60% majority, anything Obama, Pelosi, and Reid want will pretty much be write-ins. If you think we've already seen bad spending practices...you ain't seen nothing yet. :|


Oh, and remember, Obama already proved he can't be trusted:
Commentary: Obama breaks promise on campaign finance

Obama is a hypocrite.

And so is McCain. Hypocrisy is just another frequent side effect of campaigning.

 

[SK-1]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2U4NTZmNGE4YmFmMmFhZDhiZDIyMGIxOTkyZGNlMDQ=

Google found that...

Thanks, It looks like I am doing the interview, ha ha! (SK)


And YUP! It seems to be at least somewhat true... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,5458024.story

 

[FordGT90Concept]

And so is McCain. Hypocrisy is just another frequent side effect of campaigning.

Prove it. McCain is about the most patriotic and honest candidate to have ever ran and probably ever will run. Perhaps that blinds him in some sense but, I admire a man willing to die for his convictions.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjY4YzdhMDBkZGQ3ZmU2MTUzYjdkMzc5ZjUzYmViZWM=
Yes, Ayers is blunter than Obama. As he so delicately told the Times, America makes him “want to puke.” The smoother Obama is content to say our society needs fundamental “change.” But what they’re talking about is not materially different.

Such sentiments should make Obama unelectable. So, when it comes to his own radical moorings, Obama is engaged in classic liar behavior. He changes his story as the facts change — and the burden is always on you to dig up the facts, not on him to come clean. Yesterday, asked to comment on the Ayers relationship, David Axelrod, Obama’s top political adviser, hilariously chirped, “There’s no evidence that they’re close.” Translation: Get back to us when you can prove more damaging information — until then, we don’t need to further refine our perjury.

:shadedshu

 

[farlex85]

Prove it. McCain is about the most patriotic and honest candidate to have ever ran and probably ever will run. Perhaps that blinds him in some sense but, I admire a man willing to die for his convictions.



:shadedshu

Well I don't (although it depends on the conviction and situation). But I suppose you'd be willing to die for that belief so no use arguing . I do think you're a tad blinded though, are you McCain's friend/family or something?

 

[SK-1]

Well I don't (although it depends on the conviction and situation). But I suppose you'd be willing to die for that belief so no use arguing . I do think you're a tad blinded though, are you McCain's friend/family or something?

Are you a Palestinian in your parents house calling Americans? http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//081028/481/1caabe54532f44d592c6db0934f62302/

 

[farlex85]

Are you a Palestinian in your parents house calling Americans? http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//081028/481/1caabe54532f44d592c6db0934f62302/

Damn you caught me. I suppose the charade couldn't last forever..... No really I'm not exactly "for" Obama, I just am challenging such a dedication to rigid ideals that are imo lacking perspective. There's always the other side, and I do "like" Obama's character much more than McCain's, although I can see how someone could see the opposite. It would be foolish to think either are totally honest.

 

[phanbuey]

That wasn't really in any way a response to what I said, but yes I am aware you are against higher taxes for the top tax brackets, on as you perceive it a constitutional basis. We've covered that one.



It actually seems to be Article I Section VIII that initially covers tax levying by the legislative branch, and in fact they are to be "uniform throughout the United States." At least on pretty much all taxes except income taxes, which are in fact not presented under this requirement, although apparently are under another requirement (census population), which is bypassed by the 16th amendment. So yeah, technically Obama's sort of taxation actually is constitutional it would seem to me (at least under the power of the 16th amendment), more so than current sales tax and certain industry taxes. Fair tax is better though. But article II covers the executive branch it would seem. And that's another thing, don't worry so much about Obama's tax proposals. It is a congressional decision, so trust the government your wonderful constitution set up.

right on.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Well I don't (although it depends on the conviction and situation). But I suppose you'd be willing to die for that belief so no use arguing . I do think you're a tad blinded though, are you McCain's friend/family or something?

I am in no way affiliated with the McCain family and I am not Senator McCain's friend beyond the fact that I voted for him.

 

[mdm-adph]

What is up with this supposed tape the LA Times has from 03' of a party with Obama, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalaidi (Spelling?) the ex-PLO leader chumming it up?

I don't know, but it's nothing compared to that video of John McCain and Jane Fonda leaving that hotel room together back in 1975.

What, you haven't heard about that one? There's this guy somewhere who works at a newspaper who totally says it exists.

Prove it. McCain is about the most patriotic and honest candidate to have ever ran and probably ever will run. Perhaps that blinds him in some sense but, I admire a man willing to die for his convictions.

Bullshit. McCain is a politician, like all the rest, and when it comes down to it, he's willing to abandon all principles and morals when necessary.

Remember him gutting the anti-torture bill that was going through Congress a while back, after being prompted to by President Bush?

McCain, of all farking people, helped gut an anti-torture bill. :shadedshu

 

[Rammsteiner]

Prove it. McCain is about the most patriotic and honest candidate to have ever ran and probably ever will run.

Patriotic and honest dont go along very well. And if his honest is indeed so good, better not have him as president? It's still a fact he wanted to engage in Russia and wipe off N-Korea and what not.

 

[das müffin mann]

Prove it. McCain is about the most patriotic and honest candidate to have ever ran and probably ever will run. Perhaps that blinds him in some sense but, I admire a man willing to die for his convictions.

your serious, i can tell so much that is wrong with this statement

and yes he is a hypocrite, just like every other politician out there

i know that may shock some of you

 

[InfDamarvel]

Personally I'm not here to admire a man for his past deeds as a armed solider. Just look at George Bush and how everyone was talking about how he served in the air force when he was running for president. Now tell me how that experience that he truly didn't even have helped us as a country.

McCain to me seems like the worse president we could have at a time like this. Bush comes off as an uneducated president who just threw us into this war without really knowing what hes doing. McCain on the other hand seems like a man who would push us farther into this war without even taking a chance to making some sacrifices for a little peace in not only our nation but worldwide.

McCain may be willing to die for his country, but I as a citizen would not die for this country in that state that its in. Why? Because I believe in whats Just, and what the U.S. has been doing for quite sometime is a little off that path. The only thing I'd admire now is change.

O and personally, If it wasn't for the morons who believe in war and settling everything with a weapon McCain wouldn't be much of a "Hero" at all.

 

[Bigjohn]

Damn you caught me. I suppose the charade couldn't last forever..... No really I'm not exactly "for" Obama, I just am challenging such a dedication to rigid ideals that are imo lacking perspective. There's always the other side, and I do "like" Obama's character much more than McCain's, although I can see how someone could see the opposite. It would be foolish to think either are totally honest.

NoBama is probably a likeable guy, tho he acts all SNOOTY and holier than thou..."I'm so much bettter than you, you need to let me lead you... and take care of you, and give you stuff by robbing the rich... trust me, I'm smarter than you, so you can trust me..."

 

[mdm-adph]

NoBama is probably a likeable guy, tho he acts all SNOOTY and holier than thou..."I'm so much bettter than you, you need to let me lead you... and take care of you, and give you stuff by robbing the rich... trust me, I'm smarter than you, so you can trust me..."

Please give an example of this. Compared to McCain, who hardly even looked at Obama during the first two debates (as if Obama was somehow not worthy of being looked at), Obama seems as respectful as can be.

However, if your own personal experiences with the man differ, I'd like to hear.