<p>“Zoosermom, I’m curious about your comment regarding McCain and how important perceived strength is. Don’t you think being strong economically as a country is a huge part of strength? Did you know McCain admits that he doesn’t understand or know much about the economy.”</p>
<p>You asked for my opinion and it is that the economy is a whole other issue. A healthy american economy is good for the entire world, of course, does anyone really think that Senator Obama would take military action if the situation warranted? I don’t.</p>
<p>“I do. And in that “if” lies all the difference.”</p>
<p>Oh I think that’s absolutely true Garland. I just can’t envision any circumstance under which senator Obama would use force. But, honestly, that’s his fault because he’s never addressed such a circumstance and I have watched every debate, read his website carefully and have a very positive disposition toward him.</p>
<p>^^^
Exactly. I see him using force but only when it was ABSOLUTELY necessary, extremely well thought out, and all other options were exhausted. Some may find a problem with this, I do not though.</p>
<p>The amazing thing about the knee-jerk opposition to estate tax is that the people who have been indoctrinated into that mindset are so thoroughly impervious to facts. Anyone should be able to determine from observation of everyday life that a big part of most people’s estates is the value of assets owned which have increased over time - an increase in value that has never been taxed prior to their death. Add in the fact that the tax isn’t imposed on the person who amassed the estate, but on the heirs - and then challenge them to tell you who else should pay the extra tax needed to replace the lost revenue from eliminating the estate tax - and all you’re going to get is incoherent blather about “commies” and the truly fatuous “double taxation” riff (does that actually make any sense to anyone?) and the like.</p>
<p>It makes no difference what the taxing entity is, nor who pays the tax. If the heirs get it all, they have income with no tax. Why do we lowly taxpayers even want these super-rich to receive huge incomes tax-free?</p>
<p>Why hand out circumstances? Why suppose? I think force is pretty rarely warranted, and the last thing I would want is to lay out a blueprint for its use.</p>
<p>And I do know you’ve been very positive on him. I have said in the past that I could see myself voting for McCain. It’s only in the last couple years of his over-willingness to “suppose” that I have turned away from him. He just “supposes” way too much for me. (Bomb, bomb Iran…) Even if I didn’t have a son, who is now after some ill-disposed decisions very open to being drafted, I would still be against this over-willingness to believe that military action is the answer.</p>
<p>Garland’s law–whatever causes more deaths, I’m aginst.</p>
<p>Hopefully, whomever gets the keys to the troop carriers and the aircraft carriers will use them with great care, proper planning, and appropriate resources.</p>
<p>“Why hand out circumstances? Why suppose? I think force is pretty rarely warranted, and the last thing I would want is to lay out a blueprint for its use.”</p>
<p>For me (and again, I’m talking about my own vote), I would absolutely need to know that X Presidential Candidate (so as not to pick on Senator Obama) is someone that wouldn’t rule out the use of force in all case. I won’t speak for anyone else, but that’s a biggie for me. Training and equipping troops isn’t the same thing as being able to give the order. I have no confidence that Senator Obama could do that. I’d be open to hearing what he has to say on that issue, though.</p>
<p>I guess I read the “I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm” part as at least stating that there are cases where force would be warranted. I am not sure that any of the three candidates will make a list of decision points or the like; perhaps once each party has a candidate that kind of theoretical question will start to crop up?</p>
<p>“It makes no difference what the taxing entity is, nor who pays the tax. If the heirs get it all, they have income with no tax. Why do we lowly taxpayers even want these super-rich to receive huge incomes tax-free?”</p>
<p>Because it’s not collective money and no one except its owner is ENTITLED to that money. This is the mindset I just don’t get. That someone should be offended/outraged because someone else wants to protect his money from being taken away. I want to keep a lot more of my money and I understand every person who feels the same way. Every tax should be levied carefully and with remorse. Taxation should also be the measure of last resort and only toward utter necessities.</p>
<p>“I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm”</p>
<p>What does act mean to him? He has no track record upon which to fall back in this regard. Does “act” mean take it to the UN? Does it mean diplomacy? Sanctions?</p>
<p>“You feel about taxation as I do about military force, only less so.”</p>
<p>I don’t particularly love military force, but I’m not comfortable with someone that I view as a pacifist. May I respectfully discount Senator Clinton here because, frankly, I don’t think we’ll ever know what she might do because she won’t tell the truth. At least I give Senator Obama the benefit of the assumption that he will generally do what he says he will do.</p>
<p>zoosermom - neither Senator Obama, nor Senator Clinton, nor Senator McCain has been the commander in chief, so I would say their track records in that regard are similar, spotless, and entryless Two of them did vote for the current engagement but I think there’s enough sound opinion on either side that voting against this war would not be sufficient to assume someone is against every war; similarly, voting for it is not an indication that either Sen. McCain or Sen. Clinton is a war monger.</p>
<p>It’s too bad none of these folks really have executive experience - I think that’s why governors often make better candidates - or at least candidates about whom more is known regarding their leadership style, because they actually…led from a big chair instead of having a nice bunch of 99 other people to fall back on. My guess is that the VPs will come from the gubernatorial ranks.</p>
<p>"zoosermom - neither Senator Obama, nor Senator Clinton, nor Senator McCain has been the commander in chief, so I would say their track records in that regard are similar, spotless, and entryless "</p>
<p>Absolutely true, of course, but I do think that a military man can be said to have a real understanding for the necessity of military force. I’m not slamming Senator Obama, just pointing out that a question that I have has not been addressed thus far in the campaign.</p>
<p>So you have a utilitarian view here? Personally, I think that is way oversimplifying the issues, not to mention the many problems with utilitarianism as a policy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So when would force be acceptable? Wouldn’t you have to lay out a blueprint, as it were, if you want force to be used very rarely? The problem is that force is very often the only option - how do you think that diplomacy has been working in the middle east for the last few centuries?</p>
Two of them did vote for the current engagement but I think there’s enough sound opinion on either side that voting against this war would not be sufficient to assume someone is against every war; similarly, voting for it is not an indication that either Sen. McCain or Sen. Clinton is a war monger.</p>