<p>^^^</p>
<p>Obama actually proposes to have a debate, not a stacked deck/audience pretend debate-which-is-not-a-debate-but-in-fact-a-commercial debate. You can google the details and find out. It’s all out there in black and white.</p>
<h1>59: I thought we are not supposed to link to blogs??</h1>
<p>I don’t know what’s so great about the way BHO speaks. I find it as irritating as heck.</p>
<p>Maybe I have Obama derangement syndrome. Why did I start out liking him so much (I thought he was so charming and had such a nice voice) and now I can’t stand the sound or sight of him? Anyone else feel that way?</p>
<p>^^I shall do so. Thank you.</p>
<p>Well, Ilsa, not everybody is everyone’s cup of tea. </p>
<p>I actually started out liking John McCain – and I still think he’d be fun to have a beer with – but when I see him so fluidly take credit for something which he opposed (the example here is the recent GI Bill), a big chunk is taken out of my respect and liking him. These two are politicians, but McCain takes that particular tic of a politician – i.e. telling the people he is with in a moment – so far it astonishes me. I’d agree it doesn’t jibe with moments when he seems to be showing anti-politician willingness to go against the flow, namely on Iraq policy. But I think he bet on Iraq that he wouldn’t get the nomination without supporting the president as he decided with tax cuts for the rich which he was against but then was for.</p>
<p>So his likable demeanor doesn’t make up for me for the fact is that he’ll say pretty much anything to get elected and he expects we are too distracted or stupid to pay attention.</p>
<p>I didn’t know about the blogs. Is that the case? I did know about YouTube. That’s why I put the transcript there.</p>
<p>Disputing more BedHead Bunk:</p>
<ul>
<li>The story about the G.I. Bill is that McCain supported a form of the bill which had benefits commeasurate w/ time in service. He advocated that people w/ more service should have greater benefits. He didn’t support the bill that had the same benefits for everyone regardless of how long one served. McCain’s plan made more sense and he should take credit for supporting it - and being on record as not supporting the other form of the bill.</li>
</ul>
<p>Ok - that should be pretty clear now.</p>
<ul>
<li>The “Fake” Town Hall meeting story is about a guy being refused entry to the meeting & cited for disorderly conduct & trespassing. Doesn’t mention WHY he wasn’t let into the meeting at all - He was probably wearing an Obama t-shirt or other some such attire that alerted workers. Obviously he was unruly, hence the disorderly conduct charge.</li>
</ul>
<p>Keep it comin’ BedHead - People are smart enough to see your posts for what they are - Bunk.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Wow, clearly I struck a chord, BZ. May you protest a little too strenuously.</p>
<p>Here’s the full story on the GI Bill. McCain was against it before he was for it. The changes to the bill didn’t bring it into line with what he wanted, though there was a change made. But he gets in front of this veteran’s group and suddenly he implies he was leading a big charge.</p>
<p>[GI</a> Bill Survives Partisanship - The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/gi-bill-survives]GI”>http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/gi-bill-survives)</p>
<p>This is just but one example. What about his flip on being against tax cuts for the rich before he was for them?</p>
<p>Actually, I can’t quote it now because I’ve already broken the rules again apparently above, but even Fox News noted McCain’s town halls were very pro-McCain. Don’t let the details of that particular incident get in the way of the weight of evidence.</p>
<p>Okay, there you are BZ, more supposed bunk for you to dispute. The funny thing is McCain is so verbose and so loose with his positions that a lot of this kind of inconsistency is already out there on film. I can just let McCain speak for himself.</p>
<p>Change these people can’t believe in.</p>
<p>[Grim</a> proving ground for Obama’s housing policy - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/?page=full]Grim”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/?page=full)</p>
<p>From the link provided by BedHead:</p>
<p>“The issue threatened to become an election-year talking point when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the likely GOP nominee, sided with the White House in opposing the bill. McCain and several other Republicans introduced an alternative proposal offering lesser benefits. Their position was skewered by veterans groups and Democrats, including likely presidential nominee Sen.Barack Obama (Ill.). But the politics surrounding the issue has since been neutered: McCain announced his support for the Webb bill after the transferability language was added.”</p>
<p>So, he was against it until it was amended to make it more agreeable, then he supported it. This doesn’t strike me as particularly bad. If this is the worst someone can dig up about McCain, he’s the next president.</p>
<p>(Yeah, I know there is going to be more, but it’s hard to believe that the worst an Obama supporter can dig up is that McCain supported an amended bill while opposing the original one. Come on, you Obamaites can do better than that, right?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bush was increasing spending at the same time that he was giving out the tax cut. At that time, the economy was also doing well, so McCain felt that the tax cut was not needed.</p>
<p>Currently, the economy is in a bad shape, so to stimulate growth, it might be a good idea to leave the tax cut intact. Increasing taxes in this current environment can have an adverse effect on the economy. I think this is a very good economic decision.</p>
<p>“Well, ilsa, not everybody is everyone’s cup of tea.”</p>
<p>I’ll have to keep that in mind. :)</p>
<p>TOS says no blogs, I think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He didn’t get the changes he wanted. Read the whole article.</p>
<p>McCain flips all over the place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Economists</a> say recession began in March - Nov. 26, 2001](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/]Economists”>Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26, 2001)</p>
<p>[Tax</a> Burden Shifts to the Middle (washingtonpost.com)](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html]Tax”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html)</p>
<p>Oh, I get it, when times are good, it doesn’t matter. And when times are bad, it doesn’t matter. Because tax cuts for the rich are always a good idea, even when we are going into a war we can’t afford. That’s your notion, I guess. McCain thought differently then. And now he’s just been pandering.</p>
<p>And we can afford to support the troops so long as saying so means supporting an ill-conceived war, but when that means taking care of our wounded, returned soldiers or making sure they have educational benefits to give them a leg up when they return, we don’t really support our troops.</p>
<p>McCain’s GI Bill was easy – he married Cindy McCain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BedHead - your attepts to “spin” McCain topics into something negative are truly astonishing.</p>
<p>Re: Bush tax cuts - Yes, McCain was against them, but once they went into effect, to revoke them would amount to a tax INCREASE and McCain doesn’t advocate tax increases.</p>
<p>Hope you understand now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>How can you get so agitated about “policy” “issues?” Once Obama gets elected he’ll go right back to the hard left he has voted with so far. If McCain gets elected he’ll go any which way he pleases, as he always has. Do you actually believe anything either of them is saying now? Their positions often switch in a matter of weeks! That’s why I’m voting based on the character of the man. So far, McCain is coming out slightly ahead on that score.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The first tax cut was necessary because the economy was on its way to a recession, but the second tax cut was not necessary because the economy was on its way back, and we did not need to stimulate consumption. </p>
<p>McCain did not oppose the first tax cut because it was necessary to stimulate the economy, in fact, some economists have credited the first tax cut for helping the country get out of recession after 9/11.</p>
<p>When times are good tax cuts are not usually necessary, but when times are bad tax cuts might be necessary. I agree with you that you can’t cut taxes and increase spending, and that was McCain’s point in regards to the second tax cut. </p>
<p>Where do you get the idea that it was tax cut for the rich? EVERYONE benefitted from the tax cut. The rich are not bad people, they donate more to charity, and they also pay more taxes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t consider people making $180,000 as rich.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hee hee. Oh, now I get it: he was against a policy, but after it was implemented then he was for it. What changed? Oh yeah, he is running for president – again.</p>
<p>Thank you for your incisive arguments and putting paid to mine, ha ha.</p>
<p>So much for the Straight Talk Express.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The cut was disproportionately for the rich.</p>
<p>“I don’t consider people making $180,000 as rich.”</p>
<p>They are richer than 95% of Americans and 99% of the world’s people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should the top 20% pay 64.4% of the tax revenue? if we want to be “fair” shouldn’t everyone pay the same percentage? Why shouldn’t the top 20% pay 20% of the revenue?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know that, but I still don’t think they are rich, for me, a rich person is someone who makes about a one million dollars a year. If you live in New York city or Connecticut $180,000 wont take you far.</p>
<p>Context is everything. Broaden your lens to take in more of the big picture. If the top 1-5% aren’t called rich, what are they? Not poor, not middle-class… wealthy?</p>
<p>Posted this on another thread, but in case you missed it, this is good info & relevant to this discussion:</p>
<p>[Who</a> Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What](<a href=“Page Not Found - Search - National Taxpayers Union”>Page Not Found - Search - National Taxpayers Union)</p>
<p>Notice the percentage paid by just the top one percent has gone up every year.</p>
<p>And the percentage paid by the top 50 percent keeps going up while the percentage paid by the bottom 50 percent keeps decreasing.</p>
<p>Post #71: Bedhead has no real response to what I posted, and so refuted it by bringing up something entirely unrelated. I repeat, a legislator changing his mind on legislation after it’s amended is nothing new, unusual or sinister. And what makes Bedhead think McCain “didn’t get the changes he wanted.” He spoke against a bill, it was amended and then he voted for it. Sounds like he got something he wanted. Bedhead do you have a quote from McCain saying, “Well I still hate it but I’m going to vote for it anyway.”</p>
<p>For the record, it’s also not uncommon for anyone involved in negotiations to take a stronger stance than they eventually intend to accept. Initial opposition may have been nothing more than a negotiating strategy in the Senate. If you don’t think this sort of political expediency is acceptable, let’s go back to Obama’s abstentions in the Illinois legislature, shall we? He refused to vote on hot issues because (he says) he didn’t want to force fellow legislators to have to come out on hot topics during an election year. This may not be flip-flopping, but it doesn’t sound like the principled actions of someone with a strong belief in a “new” way of doing things.</p>
<p>McCain and Obama are just regular old politicians making deals and protecting their pals. Nothing new to see here – move along.</p>
<p>(Not that there is anything wrong with this, by the way. Making deals is how you get decisions made without civil war. It just makes me sick when successful politicians pretend that’s not what they do.)</p>