Jump to content

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Obama (D-IL) vs. McCain (R-AZ)

Trae

By Trae
in National Politics

 Share

Next United States President  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick One

    • Barack Obama
      54
    • John McCain
      46
    • Other
      7

Recommended Posts

crunchtastic

crunchtastic

Posted
Posted (edited)
I will agree with you on the gold factor though. Gold should be in bricks in my bank, not around my neck. Why can't men wear jewelry again ? Apparently this is just a personal preference with you and your men ?

Go for the jewelry, TJ!!!! It's those sweaty rubber band 'cause' bracelets that are so awful. It must be the sicilian dna, I like hairy men festooned with precious metals. (frank at romanos pizza: do you read the haif??) Silver good, gold better, platinum: now you're talking.

On topic, I'm squarely with Kinkaid. Would rather see our presidential candidate without the cause-celebre bracelets.

Edited by crunchtastic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted

I guess when Kink was wearing his parachute pants and checkered bandana around his leg back in 1986 he was being "original" ?

I myself have never worn a "livestrong" bracelet, but I do have a pink breast cancer pin on my leather Harley vest, does that make me a "follower" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trae

Trae

Posted
  • Author
Posted

In a national electoral poll/map, Obama is comfortably ahead of McCain:

http://electoral-vote.com/

Obama: 287

McCain: 227

Ties: 24

Jun04.png

I don't even think Texas is sure McCain. Texas has been voting Republican only since GHWB. With Obama, and hopefully strong help with Clinton campaigning for him, I think Latinos and Blacks will come out in droves in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crunchtastic

crunchtastic

Posted
Posted
In a national electoral poll/map, Obama is comfortably ahead of McCain:

http://electoral-vote.com/

Obama: 287

McCain: 227

Ties: 24

Jun04.png

Just a footnote,

electoral vote.com is a very good information source for anyone who wants an easily understandable data source without having to rely on the traditional media outlets. Capn' Crunch is an elections nerd and he loves it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted
Because it's a pin, on a Harley vest, that makes it "flair" and we all know how cool flair is. You're clear, TJ!

That, and I have two aunts who are survivors. I would MAKE it cool, even if it wasn't. <_<;)B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted (edited)
Two wods. Charles. Keating.

Two more wods ? NOT GUILTY

"Senator Alan Cranston solicited the largest political donations. Senator Dennis DeConcini played host at the meetings. Senator Donald Riegle helped set them up. Senators John McCain and John Glenn joined in asking whether Mr. Keating was being mistreated. The committee's special counsel, Robert Bennett, appears to rank the Senators in that order of culpability, hitting Senator Cranston the hardest and implying that Senators McCain and Glenn committed no impropriety. " NYT-Nov.1990

Unlike Obama with Rezko, McCain had no ACTUAL business dealings with Keating, he was merely involved in asking around about whether Keating was being treated unfairly, and if he was, HOW was it happening.

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedScare

RedScare

Posted
Posted
Two more wods ? NOT GUILTY

"Senator Alan Cranston solicited the largest political donations. Senator Dennis DeConcini played host at the meetings. Senator Donald Riegle helped set them up. Senators John McCain and John Glenn joined in asking whether Mr. Keating was being mistreated. The committee's special counsel, Robert Bennett, appears to rank the Senators in that order of culpability, hitting Senator Cranston the hardest and implying that Senators McCain and Glenn committed no impropriety. " NYT-Nov.1990

Unlike Obama with Rezko, McCain had no ACTUAL business dealings with Keating, he was merely involved in asking around about whether Keating was being treated unfairly, and if he was, HOW was it happening.

You might want to do better research. The words "Not Guilty" have never been uttered in relation to Charles Keating. His convictions were overturned on appeal (technicalities, anyone? activist judges?) Keating later pled Guilty in return for a sentence of time already served in prison.

Your point does illustrate an interesting observation, though. While McCain's business dealings with convicted swindlers that cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars seemingly does not affect McCain's reputation as "honorable", Obama's non-involvement in Rezko's criminal activity does. McCain's flip-flop on virtually every issue that made him a "maverick" in 2000 does not does not make hime a worse flip-flopper than Kerry, but Obama's lack of experience makes him a risky candidate. There are differing standards for the two candidates, and it goes both ways, depending on which candidate one supports. However, McCain's defenders seem to think his honorable military service should excuse his lack of ethics everywhere else. I do not choose to board that train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeebus

Jeebus

Posted
Posted
As for McCain, I wont vote for him because he's wearing a man bracelet on his wrist. I don't care if it is a MedicAlert (in that case, he's too old) or if it's a LiveStrong (in that case, he's following the herd), no Male President should ever be posing with that on his wrist. :)
....and just WTH is wrong with a man wearing a bracelet ? :huh::angry2::P

Nothing when it's something like this:One of McCain's Bracelets..

We're already in Iraq. There's no changing that, and we're not leaving anytime soon. Even Obama can't make that promise. We might as well have someone who's been in what Iraq has been compared to over and over (Vietnam), in the worst possible capacity no less (POW x5 years), to understand the morale of the common ground troop currently serving.

I gotta offer a hearty congrats to Obama. The man has practically zero experience yet he outhustled, outfundraised and outcampaigned the Clinton machine, who saw the nomination as her birthright (which is probably why she lost it).

And anyone who can look past Obama's warmed-over West Wing speaches can see he is just more of the same-ole' same-ole' in a better package.

Both are playing games; neither is particularly credible. McCain at least has an extensive voting record of independence to show for himself, and that counts for something, but in my eyes he is clearly the superior candidate if only on account of that he is not as articulate or cunning as Obama. Articulate and cunning politicians are dangerous. And perhaps it is because I am young, but my concern is less oriented towards the necessity of the moment as it is towards the long-term survivability of democracy. A few crappy policy stances won't distract me from that far more fundamental issue.
I agree with this. Obama has to be as well spoken as he is because he has nothing else to back him up. He's captivated a nation based on rhetoric alone. Very impressive - very dangerous.
I myself have never worn a "livestrong" bracelet, but I do have a pink breast cancer pin on my leather Harley vest, does that make me a "follower" ?
The vest, TJ. It's the vest..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
20thStDad

20thStDad

Posted
Posted

So, I agree that the war needs to end, but whoever gets elected needs to actually go over there and see how things are. Anything that could be considered "immediate" withdrawal would create complete chaos over there. It's not just about war and insurgents, we are over there training their police force and military to maintain security in the country. A friend of mine just got back from his third tour doing this. Anyway, they are not even close to ready with a stable infrastructure. Sure, if we back out the troops the insurgents will have less targets, but I think we can't abandon them or it'll be no time before some group comes up and takes the place over again. I think that would be a crappy move on our part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
westguy

westguy

Posted
Posted (edited)
We're already in Iraq. There's no changing that, and we're not leaving anytime soon. Even Obama can't make that promise. We might as well have someone who's been in what Iraq has been compared to over and over (Vietnam), in the worst possible capacity no less (POW x5 years), to understand the morale of the common ground troop currently serving.

We need someone who at least recognizes that Iraq and Vietnam are very different situations. The police and military we are training are volunteers who mostly represent one side in an ongoing civil war over there. In Vietnam we were aiding a side with little support throughout the country. Iraq is really three nations, strung together by the Europeans, as part of their effort to suppress power in the Middle East and hand it over to several elitist families. Things are not going to be fine if the person implementing this strategy doesn't know the sides who are fighting.

Edited by westguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted (edited)
You might want to do better research. The words "Not Guilty" have never been uttered in relation to Charles Keating.

Good thing I was referring to McCain then, when I said Not Guilty. McCain had no business dealings with him whatsoever, and was found to have commited NO IMPROPRIETIES, maybe you neglected to see that the first time ? A campaign contribution WAS made however, by Keating, but he was never McCain's fundraising manager, simply a contributor. Did McCain give back those funds to a charity after it was found out what Charles was doing. I don't know.

Might be interesting to find out similarities like that when they open a 14 month long investigation against Obama concerning Rezko, like they did McCain concerning Keating. That will be good for Obama right in the middle of a Presiential campaign.

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedScare

RedScare

Posted
Posted
Good thing I was referring to McCain then, when I said Not Guilty. McCain had no business dealings with him whatsoever, and was found to have commited NO IMPROPRIETIES, maybe you neglected to see that the first time ? A campaign contribution WAS made however, by Keating, but he was never McCain's fundraising manager, simply a contributor. Did McCain give back those funds to a charity after it was found out what Charles was doing. I don't know.

Might be interesting to find out similarities like that when they open a 14 month long investigation against Obama concerning Rezko, like they did McCain concerning Keating. That will be good for Obama right in the middle of a Presiential campaign.

Interesting that you think that accepting free trips from Keating and being sanctioned by the Senate Ethics Committee is "NO IMPROPRIETIES". One would also think that a guy who champions himself as the king of ethics reform would not find himself being investigated by the ethics committee. But, this is exactly the sort of thing I hear daily, and what I referenced in my post. You are aghast at Rezko's conviction, even though you know Obama was not involved in the scandal, yet you have no problem with McCain's misplaced ethics, and even attempt to defend him. But, I am not worried about it. McCain's been ignored for 3 months while the media focused on the Democratic primary. We'll get to hear all about his ethics, his wife's deals with Keating, his armies of lobbyists on his staff, and all the other wonderful things about John McCain this summer.

I have a feeling TJ will be writing these defense posts a lot in the next several months. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trae

Trae

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Good thing I was referring to McCain then, when I said Not Guilty. McCain had no business dealings with him whatsoever, and was found to have commited NO IMPROPRIETIES, maybe you neglected to see that the first time ? A campaign contribution WAS made however, by Keating, but he was never McCain's fundraising manager, simply a contributor. Did McCain give back those funds to a charity after it was found out what Charles was doing. I don't know.

Might be interesting to find out similarities like that when they open a 14 month long investigation against Obama concerning Rezko, like they did McCain concerning Keating. That will be good for Obama right in the middle of a Presiential campaign.

McCain has dealt with worse people.

You can start with these:

G. Gordon Liddy

James Hensley

Charles Keating, Jr.

Rick Davis

Oleg Deripaska

Carol McCain vs. Cindy

Cindy McCain

Joseph 'Joe Bananas' Bonanno

Donald W. Riegle (K5)

Dennis DeConcini (K5)

Alan Cranston (K5)

Bob Riley

Charlie Black

Tom Loeffler

Peter madaigan

Charles Black, Jr.

John Green

Tom Loeffler

Bob Perry

Harold Simmons

T. Boone Pickens

Carl Linder Sr.

Harlan Crow

Jack E. Caveney

Albert Huddleston.

Rick Renz

I won't tell you what all they did, because I think you'll enjoy finding out about who these terrorists, corrupt lobbyists, corrupt politicians, mobsters, criminals, convicted felons, people he screwed over, drug addicts, whores and bums are. Is McCain even a "good" guy? If we're going to do 'guilt by association' he's clearly not qualified to be running for anything.

You go look those people up, what they did, how they built their empires, the ties they have, and then you can come back and list Obama's 4 names. List them with pride. And know that when you do, we'll be thinking about these 26 names of people far more questionable and far more sinister.

You think McCain's greatest hits have been played loud enough for America to have heard them? That party hasn't even begun yet. Rest assured that it will.

And I didn't even mention the ministers he sought out the endorsement of along the way.

Edited by Trae
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedScare

RedScare

Posted
Posted
Good thing Obama wants to raise taxes to counter that. You know, just so everything is "fair."

It is a good thing, since the tried and true method for jumpstarting the economy is increased government spending. Furthermore, in keeping with his 7 year running average, Bush's 2008 deficit is predicted to hit $500 Billion. SOMEBODY has to show some fiscal responsibility.

BTW, do you have any idea how much money Bush's tax cuts have cost us (bearing in mind that running massive deficits has caused the dollar to tank, causing oil to skyrocket)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted
McCain has dealt with worse people. You can start with these:

G. Gordon Liddy

James Hensley

Charles Keating, Jr.

Rick Davis

Oleg Deripaska

Carol McCain vs. Cindy

Cindy McCain

Joseph 'Joe Bananas' Bonanno

Donald W. Riegle (K5)

Dennis DeConcini (K5)

Alan Cranston (K5)

Bob Riley

Charlie Black

Tom Loeffler

Peter madaigan

Charles Black, Jr.

John Green

Tom Loeffler

Bob Perry

Harold Simmons

T. Boone Pickens

Carl Linder Sr.

Harlan Crow

Jack E. Caveney

Albert Huddleston.

Rick Renz

I won't tell you what all they did, because I think you'll enjoy finding out about who these terrorists, corrupt lobbyists, corrupt politicians, mobsters, criminals, convicted felons, people he screwed over, drug addicts, whores and bums are. Is McCain even a "good" guy? If we're going to do 'guilt by association' he's clearly not qualified to be running for anything.

You go look those people up, what they did, how they built their empires, the ties they have, and then you can come back and list Obama's 4 names. List them with pride. And know that when you do, we'll be thinking about these 26 names of people far more questionable and far more sinister.

You think McCain's greatest hits have been played loud enough for America to have heard them? That party hasn't even begun yet. Rest assured that it will.

And I didn't even mention the ministers he sought out the endorsement of along the way.

I'm with you, why look up all those names when someone else has already done the work for me. So glad you can cut and paste SOMEONE ELSE'S Blog splice them together and make it look like yours. Just a tip, next time make sure you take out all the commas and periods of someone else's rantings before you try to post them as your own.

http://cliffschecter.firedoglake.com/2008/...ion-of-the-day/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CDeb

CDeb

Posted
Posted (edited)
It is a good thing, since the tried and true method for jumpstarting the economy is increased government spending. Furthermore, in keeping with his 7 year running average, Bush's 2008 deficit is predicted to hit $500 Billion. SOMEBODY has to show some fiscal responsibility.

BTW, do you have any idea how much money Bush's tax cuts have cost us (bearing in mind that running massive deficits has caused the dollar to tank, causing oil to skyrocket)?

The tried and true method for jumpstarting the economy is NOT to tax it to death.

Why have tax revenues increased since the tax cuts?

Edited by CDeb
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted (edited)

26 names of people McCain has had possible dealings with, but no convictions in 22 years. So far, using your numbers, 4 people for Obama in just 2 years. At that rate, he will have surpassed McCain in less than 10 years. You put "Joe Bananas" in there because McCain sent him a birthday card, WTH ? WEAK ! But of course you didn't know why Joe was on that list of names you copied, because well, you just copied it off a list and didn't do any research.

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedScare

RedScare

Posted
Posted
The tried and true method for jumpstarting the economy is NOT to tax it to death.

Any idea what the top tax rate was when Reagan took office? When he left office? Now?

Any idea what the top tax rates in every single one of the biggest economic expansions compared to now?

All Obama proposes is to get rid of Bush's tax cuts, returning them to the rates in effect during the economic expansion of the 90s. And, even then, he does not propose to raise the rates on the middle class. Seems a bit of a stretch to claim that raising tax rates to 21% LOWER than Saint Ronald Reagan's tax rates is taxing us to death.

Why have tax revenues increased since the tax cuts?

Oh, almost forgot to answer this one.

One word...

...Inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
westguy

westguy

Posted
Posted

I did grab this link from Wikipedia, but the information is conveniently listed:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."

http://logicizer.blogtownhall.com/default....f&docid=213

Some of the opinions express the outdated assertion that cutting taxes will hold down government spending. As of 2004 that clearly did not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TJones

TJones

Posted
Posted (edited)
On a brighter note, oil is up $12 since yesterday. :)

On an even brigther note. Obama's tax increases can't do anything about $12 increases in oil !

You and I BOTH know why the price of oil keeps going higher and higher. ANWR is just around the corner, and will probably be opened up just in time for elections. I hate these kind of convenient changes for our economy, especially when you can see them coming 10 miles away.

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...