Screw it. I’m voting Republican.
I’m voting Republican because I don’t think the President of the United States should be able to use a computer:
I’m voting Republican because I, like Jim Inhofe (Republican), believe that Iraq is an African nation:
I’m voting Republican because I’m part of the 90% of Americans who will end up paying more taxes under President McCain, and I love paying taxes.
…
It’s like Jon Stewart once said: “It’s not so much that you can’t make this stuff up. It’s that you wish that you had to.”
Justin Alexander
Stargate525 wrote: “You still haven’t addressed the fact that under McCain, everyone’s taxes are going to go down.
This is Bush-logic. It’s like when he cuts the funding for a program by $50 million and then later raises it by $10 million and claims he’s increased the funding for the program by $10 million.
Similarly, when Bush and McCain cut taxes regressively — handing much bigger percentage cuts to the richest 10% and even bigger percentage cuts to the richest 1% — they pretend that they’ve cut taxes across the board. Except, of course, they haven’t. Because, like every other Republican president for the past 30 years, they spend like a drunken sailor.
Their regressive tax cuts leave the middle class and the working poor responsible for a larger portion of our national tax receipts. And their spending habits, as a result, leave the middle class and the working poor holding a larger responsibility for the national debt they’re creating.
Stargate525 wrote: ”
And since when has a politician not been able to change his mind? You do it all the time, everyone does it, so why is changing one’s opinion only bad when it’s a [republican] politician who, in all reason, should change his opinion frequently as his information and knowledge changes?”
I’ve got no problem with a politician changing his mind. But that doesn’t mean I necessarily need to agree with how they’ve changed.
McCain has gone from supporting fiscal responsibility (which I support) to supporting massive tax cuts for the rich and adding precipitously to our crippling national debt (which I don’t support).
As for McCain’s position on Iraq, the poor guy can’t seem to figure out exactly what his position is… so it’s rather difficult for me to know whether I support him or not. He’ll say he wants the troops to come home by 2013, but then the next day he’ll say he wants them to stay there for a hundred years… and then he’ll deny that… but then he’ll say it doesn’t matter how long they stay…
And, more importantly, one can also look at when and how a candidate holds a particular position and when and how a candidate changes that position.
So, for example, when John Kerry supported authorizing the President to go to war to Iraq (in order to give him diplomatic leverage) and then later withdrew that support (when it became clear that Bush had lied about wanting to use that power as diplomatic lever first), I can respect Kerry’s shifting position.
OTOH, when John McCain echoes George Bush in 2003 in claiming that it will be a short, quick war… that calls into question his judgment. When he can’t tell the difference between Sunni and Shi’a, even after being repeatedly corrected on the subject… that calls into question his expertise. When he claims that Baghdad has “fallen silent” in a week where more than a hundred Iraqis — including prominent government officials — are killed in bombings…
W
Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 12:00:51 AM
Tetsubo
I’m not discussing protecting the *person*. I’m discussing protecting their property and possessions. Which is also part of what the government does under the heading of “protecting the citizenry”. And, again, who has more to property and possessions to protect than the uber-rich? You need to keep those teaming masses at bay, now don’t you? The corporate oligarchy needs its strong men now doesn’t it?
Sadly, the very people that receive the most breaks from the government are also the people bribing the most individual politicians to cover their behinds. It’s sort of a money laundering scheme really. A politician cuts a corporation a sweet deal and the corporation in turn dumps a load of cash into a “campaign fund”.
You can never tell when someone on the Interwebs is being serious.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 4:09:28 PM
Stargate525
Yeah, well considering that the actual resources expended to protect person X is exactly the same no matter his income, this argument is neutral, at best.
Sounds good to me.
I realize that, my tongue was firmly in cheek on the last one.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 9:44:56 AM
Tetsubo
The fewest benefits? Remember, the government is there to protect its citizens. Who has more to protect than the uber-rich?
How about we stop giving “incentives” to Big Oil? Especially as they keep making monster profits quarter after quarter.
You don’t get to choose your parents.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 6:31:51 AM
Stargate525
While receiving the fewest actual benefits from the government.
without which we wouldn’t have airlines, but I agree to a limited extent.
You should have eaten better as a kid, had taller parents, or live in space.
Monday, June 16, 2008, 7:50:05 PM
Tetsubo
I know that this is an unpopular position with the Right, but I want the people who have the most money, to pay the most taxes.
I also would like corporate welfare to end.
While we’re at it, I’d like to be six foot tall.
I’m not holding my breath on any of these things happening.
Monday, June 16, 2008, 4:54:04 PM
Stargate525
You still haven’t addressed the fact that under McCain, everyone’s taxes are going to go down.
And since when has a politician not been able to change his mind? You do it all the time, everyone does it, so why is changing one’s opinion only bad when it’s a [republican] politician who, in all reason, should change his opinion frequently as his information and knowledge changes?
Sunday, June 15, 2008, 5:02:23 PM
Justin Alexander
Re: Inhofe. That seems like a fair interpretation.
@Stargate525: If by “dumping it on the rich” you mean “letting Bush’s regressive tax cuts come to an end instead of doubling them (as McCain has promised to do)”, then sure. Personally, I’m tired of the middle class in this country being gutted by the failed economic policies of the Republicans.
Trickle down economics are a proven failure. In terms of bang for buck, “geyser up” economics has proven far more effective: Strengthening the lower and middle classes generates increased consumer spending, which allows capitalism to properly reward those who invest wisely.
As for “tighten the belt a little”, you apparently haven’t been paying attention. McCain has gone from promising to balance the budget in his first term; to promising to balance the budget within 8 years; to saying that balancing the budget just isn’t that important. (cite)
This is remarkably similar to McCain’s “evolving” position on Iraq.
Sunday, June 15, 2008, 2:52:57 PM
Stargate525
And did you LOOK at the table? You’ll be paying less than you do now, just not as much less. And also note where Obama is getting it; from the wealthy. McCain will have to tighten the belt a little instead of dumping it on the rich.
Sunday, June 15, 2008, 2:03:54 AM
Stargate525
You know, because he’s the one who does all the writing for his commercials…
Sunday, June 15, 2008, 2:00:59 AM
Autodidact
I’m fairly sure that when the narrator says “57 intense trips in twelve years, to the front, to the saddest parts of Africa…” that “the front” means “the battlefront (Iraq)”
So it’s not that he thinks Iraq is part of Africa. It’s just that he can’t write clearly.
Thursday, June 12, 2008, 6:42:12 PM