Remember the plane that Tom Cruise flew in Top Gun? That's their frontline fighter, which makes me lol.

pacino wrote:

right on the death penalty, gun control, Iraq, NAFTA

If you have read his opinions on these topics, he has done nothing of the sort. He is a pragmatist, and has always tried to appear as such. His NAFTA rhetoric was during the primary season in Ohio and PA where such topics are a big deal. Candidates and politicians always tailor their message to the person listening.

In the primary he stated that he was going to reopen NAFTA. Now he says that he will talk to Mexico and Canada about NAFTA. Aren't those different stances? One is unilateral and the other is not. Are you saying it's okay to lie to people and tell them what they want to hear and then tell another group what they want to hear? One of the statements isn't what he thinks. I guess pragmatist is another word for lying.

In the primary McCain told people in Michigan their old jobs weren't coming back. He told them his immigration stance. They booed him.

Reading his books help delve into his ideas a lot more than some stump speech in Feb/March 08. He stated his views on guns and the death penalty in his 2nd book. They haven't changed. You have assigned a perceived viewpoint to him.

How many people have read his books? Anyone here use what John McCain has written in his books as his position? If not, why is it okay to look at Obama's books and not McCain's?

I'm much more confident that you're right and his views haven't changed. His campaign filled out a questionnaire in November saying Obama opposed the death penalty. It wasn't his position but shouldn't he be held accountable for campaign being "pragmatic?" Likewise his view on guns contradicted previous statements.

How did he change anything on Social Security? Looks like he simply doesn't elaborate on his website. You are quite picky sir.

For months the press wrote that he was advocating counting all income over $102,000. He didn't correct them. So the press assumed they got it right. After all the economists weighed in and he saw what would be popular he gave his position. I suppose I'm cynical. This isn't all that different than his capital gains tax increase. He's given three different taxation rates. Doesn't that concern you that he doesn't understand economics?

What of the merit of his idea? Or do you simply care whether he's stated it enough times and not actually care to debate the actual solvency of it? This gotcha game is lame, and you are supposed to be all about the 'issues'.

I am? Where is that written? I'm no economist. I don't know what the best social security taxation plan is. So I can't offer an opinion whether it's a good policy. I've had a couple of small business people tell me that the assumed $102,000 plan would really hurt them. Maybe his plan is a good one. Let me know when we pin that down.

pacino wrote:I also like how politicians aren't allowed to have changing viewpoints on topics over decade or generational careers.

Politicians can change their views. Obama was ranked as the 16th most liberal senator in 2005, 10th in 2006, and 1st in 2007. His website mirrors the Democratic Party line. So I thought I knew where he stood right now. You can certainly change your opinion from three, five, or ten years ago. But two months ago? Do you want a President who is on one side of the issue and then on the other side two months later? Don't you feel betrayed about his about face on campaign finance reform, NAFTA, and FISA?

pacino wrote: It looks like many of McCain's views have changed. Why bother debating that when you can debate what he now believes? His changing views on many issues have turned me off...when I used to look at him as a good 2nd option to Joe Biden back in 2006. It's not that he changed, it's that he changed to ideas I don't like.

That's certainly a valid criticism. Which ideas are you talking about? He changed on off shore drilling, but that's not usually a big issue. People say he changed on tax cuts but he's voted for tax cuts 72% of the time. I think he's made his case on torture and immigration and why they are perceived different. His stance on free trade, the environment, gun rights
abortion, health care, gay marriage, campaign finance, and judges haven't changed. Bush adopted McCain's Iraq plan. He didn't change. Bush did.

I can totally understand not voting for McCain on his stances on issues. He's pro-life. He's not putting a timetable on withdrawal. He favors a market oriented approach to healthcare, trade, and jobs. He opposes judicial activism. These aren't popular stances with people who are left of center. And I don't think they'll change before the election.

Philly the Kid wrote:I can see McCain if he wins, getting ill or senile and a puppet govt behind him running things anyway.

We haven't had a puppet government since Woodrow Wilson's stroke in 1919. Come on. Seriously though. Let's be cynical and think that McCain will become ill and will somehow manage to hide it from the American people and remain President ignoring the 25th Amendment. Exactly who are you concerned will be running the government? Dick Cheney? I'm pretty sure he won't be around. The whole they hate each other thing. Shouldn't we assume a President McCain or a President Obama will surround themselves with people like them? If you're not fine with McCain why would it be worse if he were ill?

I've had a couple of small business people tell me that the assumed $102,000 plan would really hurt them.

Then they aren't filing their taxes in the correct manner, in my view. I've seen tax returns for small businesspeople that are able to finagle their taxes to under 6 figures of income for themselves quite easily. If they can't do that, they might not be as small as they think they are. I'm not an economist either, but I feel very comfortable discussing things about issues, despite the lack of a doctorate. There's no reason you shouldn't want to discuss them either. You live in the US and may be affected by it. Instead, let's talk about whether we feel they've changed positions!

For months the press wrote that he was advocating counting all income over $102,000. He didn't correct them. So the press assumed they got it right.

Essentially, you wrote that he didn't correct he press a couple times, so he's at fault. 'The press' is an amalgamation of a lot of different views and reporting and outlets and mediums. Many ignore whatever McCain or Obama say or do and assign viewpoints to them.

In the primary he stated that he was going to reopen NAFTA. Now he says that he will talk to Mexico and Canada about NAFTA. Aren't those different stances? One is unilateral and the other is not.

Not sure I see any sort of difference here...aren't the principle participants in NAFTA the US, Canada and Mexico? And he's going to talk to Canada and Mexico about NAFTA? Uh, I don't see what you're seeing here, at all.

Obama was ranked as the 16th most liberal senator in 2005, 10th in 2006, and 1st in 2007.

This means nothing to me. It's by an organization which assigns 'liberal' and 'conservative' points to votes on bills based on their view of what is liberal and conservative.

In the end, it seems you are much more willing to accept McCain's word on positions than Obama's. That's fine, but please admit that. That's all I ask, then we can stop this whole charade.

oh, and what IS his opinion on 'gay rights' i.e. marriage? he voted against the federal act because of 'states rights', supported the Arizona act, stated he's against civil unions, against the idea of using the word marriage, but for 'legal agreements'...like civil unions?

his opinion on immigration is now that solving any sort of problem doesn't matter, all that matters is securing our borders, whatever that means. before he put forth a noble bill which was politically ballsy and would've fixed a ton of problems AND also involved 'securing borders' but when his own party started yelling 'amnesty amnesty amnesty!' he backed off and hasn't mentioned it since. :? that's not a change, but it does annoy me and turned me off him for good.

pacino wrote:I've had a couple of small business people tell me that the assumed $102,000 plan would really hurt them.

Then they aren't filing their taxes in the correct manner, in my view. I've seen tax returns for small businesspeople that are able to finagle their taxes to under 6 figures of income for themselves quite easily. If they can't do that, they might not be as small as they think they are. I'm not an economist either, but I feel very comfortable discussing things about issues, despite the lack of a doctorate. There's no reason you shouldn't want to discuss them either. You live in the US and may be affected by it. Instead, let's talk about whether we feel they've changed positions!

Essentially, you wrote that he didn't correct he press a couple times, so he's at fault. 'The press' is an amalgamation of a lot of different views and reporting and outlets and mediums. Many ignore whatever McCain or Obama say or do and assign viewpoints to them.

It would be fair to say this makes absolutely no sense.

those were two different ideas and it looks like i forgot to quote the thing i was responding to.

i've seen plenty of tax returns from people who own businesses that make a good amount of money where they themselves don't make over 100k from it. that's all i was saying.

Some small businesses are taxed as individual income of the owner and not as a business so in essence those people are going to get royally fucking up the butt is what I think pacino is talking about here, but I have been wrong before.

straight lift from obama's book, laexile:

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated."

anyway, i've had my say.

pacino wrote:

In the primary he stated that he was going to reopen NAFTA. Now he says that he will talk to Mexico and Canada about NAFTA. Aren't those different stances? One is unilateral and the other is not.

Not sure I see any sort of difference here...aren't the principle participants in NAFTA the US, Canada and Mexico? And he's going to talk to Canada and Mexico about NAFTA? Uh, I don't see what you're seeing here, at all.

Before he said he would change NAFTA. Now he says he'll discuss changing NAFTA with Mexico and Canada. The first stance was Bushian. He decided he didn't like a treaty, so he'd set it aside and do what he wanted without consulting the other parties. Now he says he'll talk to Mexico and Canada. That's

pacino wrote:

Obama was ranked as the 16th most liberal senator in 2005, 10th in 2006, and 1st in 2007.

This means nothing to me. It's by an organization which assigns 'liberal' and 'conservative' points to votes on bills based on their view of what is liberal and conservative.

Aren't many votes clearly liberal or conservative? Voting one way would get someone a liberal score and another a conservative score. Wouldn't you score his eavesdropping immunity vote as conservative? Look at the list. The guys at the top are the most liberal Democrats and the guys at the bottom the most conservative Republicans.

pacino wrote: In the end, it seems you are much more willing to accept McCain's word on positions than Obama's. That's fine, but please admit that. That's all I ask, then we can stop this whole charade.

I was perfectly willing to accept both of their words until two weeks ago. He was for public financing, opposed eavesdropping on Americans, and wanted to unilaterally change NAFTA. I can't say I was happy about his stances but I respected that this guy had the guts to stick to such liberal views and run for President. Now I'm not sure where he stands. I like his new views better than his old ones. Do you think we should go with those?

oh, and what IS his opinion on 'gay rights' i.e. marriage?

The same as Obama's view, he opposes gay marriage.

his opinion on immigration is now that solving any sort of problem doesn't matter, all that matters is securing our borders, whatever that means. before he put forth a noble bill which was politically ballsy and would've fixed a ton of problems AND also involved 'securing borders' but when his own party started yelling 'amnesty amnesty amnesty!' he backed off and hasn't mentioned it since. that's not a change, but it does annoy me and turned me off him for good.

His opinion on immigration hasn't changed. Did you look at the clip I linked to where he was booed for saying he wasn't going to deport a soldier's undocumented mother? McCain knows that his solution has no shot, as it was opposed on both sides of the aisle. He has two choices, stick to his guns and fight a battle he's already lost or he can secure the border and then fight a battle he might win.

When Bill Clinton was President he was faced with these choices. He could stick to his guns on issues like healthcare or he could compromise his positions and get things done. Many gays are angry at Clinton for "don't ask don't tell" and Democrats think he caved on welfare reform amongst other issues. He had a successful Presidency because he worked with Congress. McCain wants to do the same. Dictators don't have to compromise. In a Democracy you do. I'm not electing a dictator.

pacino wrote:straight lift from obama's book, laexile:

"While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated."

anyway, i've had my say.

First, he is on both sides of the issue here. I don't agree with the first part because the second part negates it. If you believe that innocent people can get sentenced to the death penalty and that it is racially biased, as both Obama and I do, then you have to oppose the death penalty under all circumstances. It'd be naive to think that the death penalty could be applied to only guilty mass murderers and child rapists where there weren't questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering.

Second, my argument wasn't with him changing his stance and I apologize if I implied that. My argument is that his campaign filled out a questionnaire saying that he opposed the death penalty eight months ago before the Democratic primaries and are only now correcting that after the Democratic primaries are over. If I were a Clinton supporter I'd be mad about that.

What McCain said:
As long as American troops aren’t in danger America won’t mind having troops in Iraq for 100 years.

What America heard:
John McCain wants to be at war for 100 years and doesn’t care about American deaths.

[McCain and Obama have pretty much the same position here. Obama wants to pull out combat troops from Iraq but has indicated he’d leave non-combat troops in Iraq indefinitely. Or 100 years.]

What McCain said:
His immigration bill won’t come up for another vote. America wants to secure the border first.

What America heard:
John McCain would not vote for his immigration bill. He’s flip flopped on immigration.

What McCain said:
He’s not as strong on economic issues as foreign policy issues.

What America heard:
John McCain admits to knowing nothing about economic issues.

What McCain said:
He opposes torture.

What America heard:
Since John McCain voted to allow some forms of torture he’s flip-flopped and now favors torture.

Why is it that so many things he’s said have been misinterpreted or reported wrong? Is it the media wanting salacious stories? A strong Democratic Party “marketing” campaign? The complexity of his answers? Democratic bloggers trying to smear him?

The only time I can think of something like this happening with Barack Obama is that he never said he would unilaterally reopen NAFTA. He implied it to get votes in Ohio, however, so he wanted that interpretation. When Obama has been attacked on things he’s said it’s been on conclusions that may or may not be accurate. When he said, “They are sticking with guns and religion waiting for jobs that aren’t coming back” people concluded he didn’t understand white working class voters. That may be true.

Drawing the same conclusion with McCain’s 100 years statement might be that he believes that funding Iraq is more important than funding healthcare. That may be true.

Why hasn’t Obama suffered a similar fate? It doesn’t seem like the media is that easy on him. Is it a poor job by Republicans? Does he not give complicated answers that can be misinterpreted?

Laexile wrote:What McCain said:
His immigration bill won’t come up for another vote. America wants to secure the border first.

What America heard:
John McCain would not vote for his immigration bill. He’s flip flopped on immigration.

What McCain did was TRY to waffle out of answering the question, by saying it won't come up for a vote. Then Hook said "But what if it did", and he responded "No, I would not". It IS what he said, and what America heard.

I wonder how many BSG'ers you've swayed so far.... away from McCain, I mean.

Shore wrote:

Laexile wrote:What McCain said:
His immigration bill won’t come up for another vote. America wants to secure the border first.

What America heard:
John McCain would not vote for his immigration bill. He’s flip flopped on immigration.

What McCain did was TRY to waffle out of answering the question, by saying it won't come up for a vote. Then Hook said "But what if it did", and he responded "No, I would not". It IS what he said, and what America heard.

He follows that up with "the situation today is that the people want the borders secure first. To say that would come to the floor of the Senate it won't."

It's fairly obvious that "No, I would not" refers to "No, I would not [reintroduce the bill.]" As I noted earlier he said three days earlierthat he'd sign it. The worst anyone should accuse him of doing is evading the question.

Shore wrote:I wonder how many BSG'ers you've swayed so far.... away from McCain, I mean.

I recognize your sarcasm in this comment, but I'm not trying to sway anyone either way. I'm engaging in an honest discussion of the candidates. I have a point of view, but I think that adds to discussion. Other than Jerseyhoya almost everyone who posts here decided on Obama long ago. I doubt my passion and prolixity would turn anyone off from McCain, but if they are basing their decisions on me that isn't a vote that McCain was likely to get anyway.

So...yeah...about Iran:

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html]Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
[/url]

eh, Seymour Hersh

Woody wrote:So...yeah...about Iran:

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html]Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
[/url]

eh, Seymour Hersh

Seriously, all Hersh references should be banned from the site. I might respect Conlin more.

I wonder if Obama is listening?

Polls are polls so their worthless (except when they aren't), but I think Obama and the Democratic congress (with it's worse approval rating that the worst president ever ever) need to shake their head a bit and realize that the US is still pretty (very?) right of center on terms of taxes, markets, and government intervention in day to day affairs.

Why isn't it illegal to report on a covert operation that might result in Americans getting killed?

Vox, that poll is worthless. Redistribution of wealth sounds Communist to people. So few will say they're for that. Obama wants to tax the oil companies and send the money to Americans to pay for gas. I'll bet a huge percentage will be in favor of that, even though it's a redistribution of wealth.

When asked about Senator McCain's experience being an asset, Obama communications director Robert Gibbs responded:

Look, I think most polling shows that based on the purely Washington definition of the word experience, that Senator McCain scores well. I think, though, if people take a look at what Washington experience has gotten us throughout the nearly three decades of service that John McCain has spent in Washington, or the last eight years of the Bush administration, that they would find a country that a record number of people say is heading in the wrong direction. Our energy problems have, in the last eight years, gotten nothing but worse.

He's basically saying that being in Congress for 25 years is a negative for McCain. If that's the case, then he's saying that it's a negative for every other member of Congress. John McCain isn't passing bills by himself. He's pretty much advocating getting rid of any Congressmen who've been there the last eight years. That includes Democrats.

He should have said this:

John McCain's experience makes him a valuable member of Congress. But America doesn't need that in a President. They need a President who hasn't been sucked in by Washington and has fresh ideas. John McCain's experience will serve the country well... in Congress.

The Democrats have a very tight wire to walk here. They've elected to go negative and jump on the anti-Bush bandwagon. They're saying that the government is bad, elect Obama. When you do this, you run into Congress having an approval rating 10 points less than Bush. The Democrats should be extolling the virtues of Obama instead of the Bush negatives.

Every Republican running against an incumbent Democrat should find a way to jump on the Democrats saying the government stinks and run with it. The economic downturn got a lot worse starting in 2007. When this Congress went in, Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high. Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon. The unemployment rate was 4.5%. The economy has tanked. Republicans should run ads: "In 2006 America voted for change. And you got it!"

I know the Republican name is a dirty word, but just as Obama can seize on the country's unhappiness with Bush the GOP should be able to seize on the country's unhappiness with Congress.

Woody wrote:So...yeah...about Iran:

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html]Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
[/url]

eh, Seymour Hersh

more on Hersch you can listen also to interview this morning

Philly the Kid wrote:

Woody wrote:So...yeah...about Iran:

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html]Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
[/url]

eh, Seymour Hersh

more on Hersch you can listen also to interview this morning

C'mon, at least spell the dude's name right. It's right there in Woody's post. I bet you'd spell Amy Gudmyn's name right...