El Sitherino Posted September 4, 2008 Author Share Posted September 4, 2008 As I recall, she sent everyone in a AK a huge check (>$1200) from this windfall. If she could do that for the rest of the country...... Except that's not what the McCain/Palin campaigns economic plan is. PS: I has dyslexia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 As I recall, she sent everyone in a AK a huge check (>$1200) from this windfall. If she could do that for the rest of the country......QFT But the windfall came from a tax increase on the Oil and Gas industry. It is funny what happens when you tax everyone and not just the little man. I could deal with her kind of trickledown economics. No matter how we spin it, the fact of the matter is Sara Palin raised taxes. I am not arguing that she was wrong or right to do so. I’m just saying it is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 I find a few of her policies and beliefs a bit unnerving. She's apparently gone on record as saying that she won't judge homosexual people, and she doesn't have a problem with their personal choices. But then, she votes against health benefits for same-sex couples. Hypocrisy? Also, I don't have an opinion on abortion, but I don't think that making it illegal in all cases (even for rape or sexual abuse cases) is right. Agreed. As I recall, she sent everyone in a AK a huge check (>$1200) from this windfall. If she could do that for the rest of the country...... Except now she's endorsing a completely different policy. To your 1st shot EW, I wasn't aware I had to sound anything. Was only pointing out the factual incorrectness of someone else's observation. One doesn't usually use the word "maybe" when arguing with someone. To your second point, as you're clearly reaching w/your "point" (to be generous). Are you saying that the war in Iraq has been lollipops and puppydog tails so far? Because I believe you said that we'd be "running with our tails betwixt our legs at the first sign of trouble." I'm not reaching when I assert that the war has been trouble before today. On your last observation, we've always outspent the USSR in terms of $$ as our economy has always been larger (and more successful) than theirs. So, what exactly is your point again? That it's a bit more understandable that Reagan spent more than he was making. And yet the economy wasn't as bad as you seem to make it out to have been. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Except that's not what the McCain/Palin campaigns economic plan is. PS: I has dyslexia Never said it was........ btw, if you're really going on vacation, have a good one. But the windfall came from a tax increase on the Oil and Gas industry. It is funny what happens when you tax everyone and not just the little man. I could deal with her kind of trickledown economics. No matter how we spin it, the fact of the matter is Sara Palin raised taxes. I am not arguing that she was wrong or right to do so. I’m just saying it is a fact. You know, if the dems took the windfall profits taxes they plan to hit big businesses with and gave everyone "rebate checks" from the total the amount of the windfall (ie, didn't use it for the general fund) I might be able to get behind that too. Would probably only cancel out/offset the subsequent likely price increases from those businesses, though. Since I never argued that any taxation was inherently bad/wrong.......not sure what you guys are driving at in the end. @EW-- One doesn't usually use the word "maybe" when arguing with someone. Only a sith deals in absolutes. Seriously, not sure what you're trying to say here. Is it that every she should have said "when" in every circumstance when discussing her hoped for future or something else? Also, one can use maybe when arguing with someone depending on the nature of the argument. Are you saying that the war in Iraq has been lollipops and puppydog tails so far? Because I believe you said that we'd be "running with our tails betwixt our legs at the first sign of trouble." I'm not reaching when I assert that the war has been trouble before today. Saying that quitting, much like hope, isn't a strategy. If you mean to imply that I think this administration has done everything perfectly, you'll not find anything like that said by me anywhere in these forums. That's what I meant by reaching. All wars are trouble from the getgo, whether you win or (especially if) you lose. That it's a bit more understandable that Reagan spent more than he was making. And yet the economy wasn't as bad as you seem to make it out to have been. Again, never contended the economy was bad in the first place. Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Merely asserted that congress has had a habit of deficit spending and used the Reagan years as but an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 4, 2008 Author Share Posted September 4, 2008 I don't think anyone is talking about quitting the war. Effectively the mission is complete, it is however not correctly done. If you paid attention you'd realize that what is being presented by Obama is a systematic withdrawal of forces. Meaning through a determined short frame of time troops will be removed from Iraq. Also I'd advise you to look into the economic plan the Democratic party is currently invested in. Apparently you haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 El what about the commanders on the ground? Don't you think they should be involved in that withdrawal decision making process? After all, they and the soldiers are the ones fighting the war. They can make their recommendations of when to withdraw and what rate to leave based on what they see with their two eyes on their experience on how things on the ground are going. Soldiers fight wars not the government. From what I've heard though things are doing well things are still fragile. Meaning if we leave too quickly we could very well undo some of what we've accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 4, 2008 Author Share Posted September 4, 2008 El what about the commanders on the ground? Don't you think they should be involved in that withdrawal decision making process? Did you not hear Obama? He's stated that he will conference with the military leaders and co-council on the timeframe. And considering many favor the idea, we'll be sure to see great progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 The Dem leadership has been screaming for near complete withdrawl (and not necessarily "orderly" at that) for several years now. Don't know what you've been watching. The Dem economic plan is pretty much what it always is......taxes, taxes and more taxes. Oh, and dramatic cuts in defense if they can get away with it. The only thing I've heard BO say that makes much sense is that perhaps the income cap on FICA should be removed so that most (not all, given the $100k gap or so between current limit and limit he was considering). If we're gonna keep SS, it's gonna need a lot of reforms. Means testing is one consideration that should be seriously weighed. Also, plans are only that, plans. It's an election year and like all pols, they'll say what they want to get elected. Problem with phased withdrawls, which is essentially what you're referring to, is the artificially accelerated timeline it's being subjected to rather than the situation in theatre. BO's emphasis is on a timeline (like the dems in general), rather than circumstances. If both can be made to dovetail....great. Still, it's about as inspiring a position as saying he'll meet with our enemies with no preconditions and take force off the table as a negotiating ploy. If he's serious (should we take him at his word?), he's too naive to be POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 4, 2008 Author Share Posted September 4, 2008 The Dem leadership has been screaming for near complete withdrawl (and not necessarily "orderly" at that) for several years now. Some have, the others that are intelligent have been asking for timeframes on when we planned to start pulling troops back. Logical thing to do when you, you know, have some concern about the troops. Don't know what you've been watching. The politicians. The Dem economic plan is pretty much what it always is......taxes, taxes and more taxes. Both parties will have to increase taxes. To ignore this fact is foolish and ignorant. You can't spend government funds if there aren't any, hence why we effectively owe China. How's that for keeping it American. Oh, and dramatic cuts in defense if they can get away with it. You also realize the military has lots of money pits, right? If you pay attention to what is stated budgeting will be put in place that increases effectiveness in the military on top of efficiency. Problem with phased withdrawls, which is essentially what you're referring to, is the artificially accelerated timeline it's being subjected to rather than the situation in theatre. Right, okay. I'll keep that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Nuclear power is clean and can produce a massive amount of electricity compared to other more environmentally safe options. You're right, I shoudl have given Nuclear Power more consideration. It is very effective, but I think it should be done in moderation. After awhile though, the problem becomes where to safely store all the radioactive waste when nuclear power is no longer needed. However, if there is a safe way to store nuclear waste, then that's great. I haven't heard of any good way to permanently dispose of it yet, but if there is, please tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Not to mention that fissile materials aren't renewable either. Would hate to think that we would trade in scarce source of energy for another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I would like to think that ~200 years worth of uranium would provide us with enough time to find something better. Like fusion, perhaps? As for disposal, the waste can be recycled to the point that the final amount is much less, and this can be stored until we have the technology to send all of it into the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share Posted September 5, 2008 Or we can use it to power Gundams, but that's an entirely different topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Not to mention that fissile materials aren't renewable either. Would hate to think that we would trade in scarce source of energy for another. Well, if we're going THAT route, nothing is renewable. With climate change, windy/sunny places may become rainy and not windy(respectively), geothermal has already shown to wear down in effectiveness over time. Tides are dependent on ocean currents and the moon, changes to those will make tidal where it's been built ineffective. Rivers can dry up and make hydroelectric useless, and hey, in a few billion years, the sun will burn out. All sources of energy are finite, there is no argument there, so we cannot simply say "no" to any energy source with a life expectancy of less than 1000 years. Nuclear fuels are estimated to last several hundred years. In 500 years we have gone from not having electricity to space travel. In another 100 we could have developed tech to clean the air. Nuclear isn't supposed to last forever, it's just supposed to last significantly long enough to get us off oil. If, through use of nuclear, we can get off oil in 100 years, then we can transition to something that will last even longer after that. That's just the way it's gonna have to go. One source lasts 100, the next lasts 200, the next 400, the next 800. Given that no resource is infinite... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Some have, the others that are intelligent have been asking for timeframes on when we planned to start pulling troops back. Gee, I'm so glad that they vocally pushed "so gently" for a point of info and not to create pressure aimed at undermining the war effort. Logical thing to do when you, you know, have some concern about the troops. I wish I could believe that's what is was and not salivating over what they wanted to do with all the $$ that would no longer be "wasted" on the war. Both parties will have to increase taxes. To ignore this fact is foolish and ignorant. You can't spend government funds if there aren't any, hence why we effectively owe China. As I already pointed out that I recognize that the money has to come from somewhere and that not all taxation was inherently "evil", your point here comes across as nothing more than you being snarky. Problem isn't should taxes be raised but can you trust the govt to use the $$ responsibly. You clearly have more faith in BO and company than I think is justified. How's that for keeping it American. If all those proposed taxes are used to rebuild the infrastructure (roads and bridges, etc..) and pay down the national debt, then it's as American as apple pie and hotel porn. Anything else and it's just biz as usual. You also realize the military has lots of money pits, right? If you pay attention to what is stated budgeting will be put in place that increases effectiveness in the military on top of efficiency. Heresy! Honestly, can you really point to any big govt program that's not plagued by misspent funds? Talk is cheap. Does it specify what efficiencies are being put in place or is that too much change to ask for from the lord high BO, bringer of change? Right, okay. I'll keep that in mind. Your sarcasm aside ( ), you also realize that the military has to take it's lead from its political masters and that the higher you get in the military, the more political it gets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share Posted September 5, 2008 So far the only person here that's been proven wrong is you. If you want to continue to believe all Democrats inherently waste money then that is your issue, however I will ask that you cease mucking up this thread further than you and others already have. As well the McCain side has yet to post it's personal priorities and how they relate to their candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I hate to distract from the current topic, but this is still related to the election. I'm currently listening to Cindy McCain speak. However, it seems very insincere. I'm not sure how to explain it other than, "The type of pre-prepared speech that makes one seem that she's lying. Utterly lying." Anyways, what are your thoughts on this matter? I'm getting sick of this Convention, which rapidly devolved into a sniping fest. Not that the Democrats were better by bounds and leaps, but at least they made sense. Opinions, opinions, opinions. Where would the world be without them?* *Probably a much safer, happier place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 And I thought that all politicians were presumtuous, arrogant, egomanical twits? They are, it's just whether she wants to appear that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 your point here comes across as nothing more than you being snarky. Problem isn't should taxes be raised but can you trust the govt to use the $$ responsibly. You clearly have more faith in BO and company than I think is justified. Wait, what? He has more faith in BHO than justified why? Because he thinks that he will responsibly spend the money collected by taxes? He's not snarky, he's right. What justifies your disdain for the next president of the United States? _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 What justifies your disdain for the next president of the United States? _EW_ Dang the election's over already? That's part of the reason I don't like Obama. Too many people assuming he's going to win. Ok, Since it's been asked, My reason's for supporting McCain. 1) He's not telling me that he's going to raise taxes. He may have to, but at least he's not telling me he intends to raise taxes. 2) I feel that prior military service gives one a better perspective on a military involvement. Plus, maybe a bit of it is that I used to be in the Navy, so there might be a bit of Navy Pride involved. 3) He's been a POW, been tortured, and in fact opposed the Bush Admin on the issue of Gitmo. 4) McCain/Feingold Bill 5) Not pretending that getting out of Iraq will be easy or quick. Regardless of your opinion of the war, assuming that it is even possible is wrong. 6) I think Congress will remain Democratic. Actually I hope it does. That way the White House and Congress HAVE to put aside differences to get anything done. If not, then I want them both to have a very hard time getting anything done. 7) Having my mother who lived in Japan and couldn't get her broken back worked on in Japan actually come back to the US to get proper medical care kinda colors my vision of Universal Health Care. Having several friends who live in AZ but moved FROM Canada because of the health care system there adds to that. 8) I like that McCain has in the past went AGAINST party lines. I hate pure party lines. I have a few more, but those are the ones I see as my reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share Posted September 5, 2008 Dang the election's over already? That's part of the reason I don't like McCain. Too many people assuming he's going to win. Oh snap, politics. 1) He's not telling me that he's going to raise taxes. He may have to, but at least he's not telling me he intends to raise taxes. So you feel Obama is unfit to lead this country because he tells you what is going to happen? 2) I feel that prior military service gives one a better perspective on a military involvement. I don't, I do however think someone that has seen brutality take place is better suited to understand the severity of combat. 3) He's been a POW, been tortured, and in fact opposed the Bush Admin on the issue of Gitmo. Which he now opposes his previous opposition to the Bush admin. 4) McCain/Feingold Bill Which McCain now does not quite uphold. 5) Not pretending that getting out of Iraq will be easy or quick. Regardless of your opinion of the war, assuming that it is even possible is wrong. You're assuming Obama has said it will be easy or quick. He hasn't, infact he's said it won't. Again you're stating something that is wildly untrue. While I don't think he'll hold up to everything, at least what he speaks about is intelligent and a move towards progress. 6) I think Congress will remain Democratic. Actually I hope it does. That way the White House and Congress HAVE to put aside differences to get anything done. If not, then I want them both to have a very hard time getting anything done. Because that's change. On top of that, that is not how you progress a nation, because progression by it's very nature requires change. 7) Having my mother who lived in Japan and couldn't get her broken back worked on in Japan actually come back to the US to get proper medical care kinda colors my vision of Universal Health Care. Having several friends who live in AZ but moved FROM Canada because of the health care system there adds to that. Excuse me, you lost me somewhere in your emotional anecdote. I believe you had a point about McCain and Universal Healthcare? 8) I like that McCain has in the past went AGAINST party lines. I hate pure party lines. And yet now he's 100% pure Republican puppet. I have a few more, but those are the ones I see as my reasons. Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Oh snap, politics. no need to be rude. Hey it's just that people are talking like Obama's already won. As for UHC, the point is that I have a family member that actually experienced a need for UHC in one of the countries that has UHC, and she(my mother) was not given that proper health care. I don't trust our government to do a better job than them. I don't support UHC, and don't want my tax dollars to go to it. If you believe it's all wonderful and all, great. I just have a bit more distrust for the government to handle it properly. And I really don't think he's really 100% republican puppet. But if so, then so be it. I tend to agree more with the Republican side than the Democrat side anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share Posted September 5, 2008 no need to be rude. I didn't mean to be rude, I simply wanted to point out that this is a message from all sides. There isn't a need to try pointing fingers, to be fair that in itself is a bit rude. Especially misdirected pointed fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 So far the only person here that's been proven wrong is you. If you want to continue to believe all Democrats inherently waste money then that is your issue, however I will ask that you cease mucking up this thread further than you and others already have. As well the McCain side has yet to post it's personal priorities and how they relate to their candidate. You've sadly proven nothing except your own intolerance for differing opinions and positions. Ce le vie. Wasn't aware this was a BO pep rally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share Posted September 5, 2008 As for UHC, the point is that I have a family member that actually experienced a need for UHC in one of the countries that has UHC, and she(my mother) was not given that proper health care. I don't trust our government to do a better job than them. I don't support UHC, and don't want my tax dollars to go to it. If you believe it's all wonderful and all, great. I just have a bit more distrust for the government to handle it properly. I don't have blind faith in any administration getting it right. I do however support enforcing fair treatment with private insurance agencies. As well simply stating one "I happened to know" story does not add up specifically to a faulty system. There could be any number of reasons she wasn't treated where she visited for her check. They may not have had the equipment to care for her. All hospitals encounter these issues. They likely directed her to other facilities. Sometimes they need the best treatment and sometimes that happens to be here in the US. Just to clarify medical facilities and such. That may not be the case, she may have been royally ****ed over. That **** can happen, that's why you speak up to make sure it's corrected. That's why we elect our representatives and write to them, they represent us in the government. You've sadly proven nothing except your own intolerance for differing opinions and positions. Ce le vie. Wasn't aware this was a BO pep rally. I wasn't aware of this either. Perhaps you'd like to PM me your evidence of this claim? I apologize for people talking like Obama's already won annoys you. To be fair it annoys me too. Same with people saying McCain or Nader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.