I'm a leftie but why do I like McCain?

FatherTed

Pocono Joe wrote: »

..
Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama's Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To 15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama's Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama's Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest.
Obama's Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion,
Obama's Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama's National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion.
Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees.
Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems.
Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs and Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800Million Over Four Years.
Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank.

All great I ideas. Sign me up.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I am not against everything on Obama’s list. Just the fact that there is no mention of checks in spending to pay for it. "Change" is all that will be left in our bank accounts if Obama has his way with a Democrat controlled congress behind him.

The answer is in your own post.

Cost of the Iraq war? Much of the regular costs have been shifted to "the war." Even if we brought the troops home, many of these costs associated with the military will still need to be paid. And what about the cost of our illegal aliens, which has seemingly dropped of the map in this election? It’s a matter that costs our country almost $350 billion dollars a year.

The benefits of what illegals provide outweigh the costs. Paying what is the normal wage for the work illegals do e.g. in farming, construction etc would mean much higher prices for such things.

Sand

Hobbes

The latter. Of course the first comment you made is not related.

Then be a little more careful in your phrasing, as saying...

which is very much similar to "I don't hate black people and I a lot of black friends but.....".

implies things to some people, which of course you never intended to imply...

But lets talk about McCains praise for Obama. For example.

You seem to believe you cannot respect someone and disagree with them or criticise them. McCain has praised Obama on what I believe - rightly or wrongly - is a genuine level. The best Obama has done in return is to note McCains long service, in what is a probably a jab at his age given Obamas political skills.

- Making fun of a tip by Obama in response to a question someone asked "What I can I do personally to save energy" he suggested the right air in your tires. McCain makes up tire guages making fun of Obama when in fact experts questioned that 3% of gas is wasted in that way in the USA.

This is actually an example of (how bad a politician/how honest) McCain is. His campaign team lampooned Obama's advice on saving oil by handing out free tire gagues at their rallies. McCain foolishly admitted his opponents idea had merit. You do not want someone in the White House who doesnt know enough about politics to know youve got to ignore and ridicule your opponents ideas regardless of logic or merit. Obama wouldnt make that sort of error.

I am sure Sand is an avid follower of McCain so would be aware of these so wouldn't need links.

I have no personal investment in him or his campaign actually, though I believe my interests are better served by him in office than Obama. And I do respect him for what hes done and experienced as opposed to Obama who talks the talk - but whose entire campaign has hinged on two things - he voted against the Iraq war, whereas Clinton didnt and he gives a good speech whereas Hillary Clinton gives a good robot impression on the podium.

Obama might actually make a great US president - he is an unknown quantity so its hard to say either way. And also, as I have already noted my natural cyncism bristles when I hear the ****ing bull**** he liberally sprinkles his speeches with.

But as I said, hes unique amongst US presidential candidates in his hostility to free trade. Hence, whilst masses might turn out to cheer him in Berlin rallies theyll be the ones getting ****ed over when Obamas trade policies screw them.

On the other hand, Obamas energy policies make a little more sense than McCains - offshore drilling just puts off the inevitable and ignores the reality that the price isnt being set by US domestic supply and demand but by international supply and demand. China and India are simply undergoing industrial revolutions the likes of which havent been seen since the 19th century and the demand on oil is increasing almost exponentially.

Any long term solution to the "energy crisis" and US dependance on foreign oil is going to lie in leveraging the US/EU technological advantage to discover new energy sources or make existing ones economical.

Unfortunately McCain has to appease fund raisers who have a big stake in off-shore drilling. But, more than likely, if he reaches office, Obama will "refine" his off-shore drilling policy as its one of those quick-fixes that makes it look like someone is doing something.

Just the fact that there is no mention of checks in spending to pay for it. "Change" is all that will be left in our bank accounts if Obama has his way with a Democrat controlled congress behind him.

Seeing as the U.S. is already running at a significant deficit thats not going to be a major adjustment of budgetary policy. McCain is going to face that same Democrat controlled congress too, so the political realities facing him arent going to change much.

Obama as a politician is going to concentrate on the good, "free" stuff as part of his election campaign - he doesnt have to worry about how hes going to pay for it until he gets into office. No one ever got elected on a manifesto of cutbacks and tax hikes...


Pocono Joe

Cost of the Iraq war? Much of the regular costs have been shifted to "the war." Even if we brought the troops home, many of these costs associated with the military will still need to be paid.

True, but its easier to make cutbacks to military programs, funding and support like medical care if theres no war on.

Raise taxes on capital gains and dividends will cost our country hundreds of billions in less investment, less business startup, higher unemployment, and even less taxes (as the rich will find ways to shelter income… just look up Bill and Hillary Clinton’s investments)

It might not either - it depends on where exactly on the tradeoff curve the current tax point is. I dont pretend to know, and Id agree that increasing taxes doesnt mean a 1 for 1 gain in tax take [ as the rich can simply move their income from capital shares to luxury goods or whatever] but neither does it mean a 1 for 1 loss. Bush's tax plans tended to benefit the richest in the U.S. so Obamas tax plans mightnt actually do you more good than harm, unless youre a billionaire who lives off dividend income.

(And I detest double standards in these forums. But I will endeavor to learn the nuances of acceptable personal attacks.)

Double standards are a given, moderators are selected from volunteers from the general posting population and its impossible for people to be neutral in politics or similar. Best you can hope for is disinterest, in which case why would they volunteer?

The nuances around acceptable personal attacks are simple - dont ever say "Youre a complete wanker!!!", instead say "only a complete wanker would believe that!!!" as now youre attacking the post and not the poster. Though you dont even have to go that far. A lot of people invest a lot of their ego into their internet political posturing - criticising their views, however politely tends to draw a lot of hostility. Especially if youre not polite and call a spade a spade, by saying stuff like "Thats a stupid idea". That riles most people right up and youve not actually said anything offensive. Look at Hobbes on McCains criticism of Obama - Hobbes reckons McCain criticising Obamas views or policies is on par with McCain personally attacking Obama as a person.

So dont get too worked up about trying to figure out personal attacks, just attack peoples posts and the vast majority of people will take it as a personal attack on themselves.

Be careful around moderators though, they have a tendancy to ban you or threaten to ban you if you disagree with them or annoy them in some way. You have no constitutional right to post on this forum - or any forum, so basically if they want to ban you they can just make some **** up. Its not like your appeal is going to go to the Supreme Court or make the evening news so in those scenarios just suck it up.


Manic Moran

Of note, I caught on the news this morning that the offshore drilling moratorium applies only to companies that are in the US. Foreign nations apparently can still do so. I need to look into that.

That sounds odd - wouldnt some lawyers have gatecrashed that party long ago by moving a shell company to Jersey or somewhere? Possibly foreign companies mightnt be specifically prevented from doing so, but theres some other regulation or laws that prevent or limit their access to the US oil reserves anyway?

oscarBravo

Sand wrote: »

The nuances around acceptable personal attacks are simple - dont ever say "Youre a complete wanker!!!", instead say "only a complete wanker would believe that!!!" as now youre attacking the post and not the poster.

Bad advice, which I'd suggest people not follow.

...saying stuff like "Thats a stupid idea".

Which isn't against the forum charter. It may upset people, but they have to deal with it.

Be careful around moderators though, they have a tendancy to ban you or threaten to ban you if you disagree with them or annoy them in some way. You have no constitutional right to post on this forum - or any forum, so basically if they want to ban you they can just make some **** up. Its not like your appeal is going to go to the Supreme Court or make the evening news so in those scenarios just suck it up.

This is on-topic how, exactly? You're here long enough to know better.

But hey, thanks for the vote of confidence.

Pocono Joe

Very entertaining responses Hobbes, FatherTed (ex Galway, now USA... you're not my uncle are you?), and Sand! I got a good chuckle out of many of them.

Although some of the points show a lack of knowledge about matters over here, it is interesting to see viewpoints from across the pond. As an example I’ll note a comment about Obama’s hostility to Free Trade. It is so far off the radar screen right now that it’s sadly laughable.

Oh yeah FatherTed, you can sign up by getting in line behind the hundreds of thousands of additional Americans who will be visiting the unemployment office. As for me… I’m vying for the position of Homeland Director of Tire Inflation. :rolleyes:

Sand

LOL - I'm going to get banned shortly, amn't I....

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've been seeing a hell of a lot of Obama on CNN, far less so of McCain.

Going back to this, looks like I'm not alone. Saw this headline yesterday.

http://people-press.org/report/441/obama-fatigue



NTM

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

As an example I’ll note a comment about Obama’s hostility to Free Trade. It is so far off the radar screen right now that it’s sadly laughable.

Really? I had not heard that. You appear to know, I don't so please enlighten me.

Because I've had a look at the sources (McCains/Obamas) and to be honest they don't differ all that much.

I did find this..
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050630-why_i_oppose_cafta/index.php

Which explains clearly Obamas feelings on CAFTA (something McCain voted for). A bill that only passed by 2 votes and had 25 republicans voting against it.

I would be interested to see why McCain voted for it. What benefits he saw for the American people. You appear to know, can you point me to it?

I wonder because a quote about it from another Republican senator.
One of those lawmakers, Rep. Walter Jones, R-North Carolina, told his colleagues that 200,000 jobs in his state have been lost since in the decade since passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and "CAFTA is NAFTA's ugly cousin."

So please point me to what John McCain saw as a benefit to the American people in that bill

You also failed to explain what you were trying to imply with those earlier figures? Are you saying Obama is not giving enough to those areas you mentioned? Or too much?

What is McCain doing in those areas? Please tell me, as you appear to know more then I do in that area.

MM, really who is the most on TV is a way to decide who gets to be president? Why is this even a talking point in who should run the country for the next 4 years?

Hobbes

Joe, you mention about Obama being a Job Killer, but I am having trouble finding anything. I did find this though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_I6GXfDUSM

If your not able to watch it, is McCain saying he wasn't briefed on a deal that cost 8,600 American jobs. Yet he and his campaign manager helped make it happen and his campaign managers firm made $585,000 for the deal.

I did find that there is a leaked Memo from McCain camp to paint Obama as a job killer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/07/leaked-mccain-memo-paint_n_117484.html

Black Swan

Does it appear that McCain's celebrity attack ad comparing Obama to Paris Hilton has backfired, especially with Hilton's humourous vid that got over 2 million hits in a very short time?

Why is McCain attacking Obama for being more of an attraction than himself? Does it remind you of a spoiled complainer (in the sandbox of life) that is upset he is not the center of attention?

Pocono Joe

H… I never said Obama was a Job Killer (unless you are referring to another Joe), I only mentioned "another person’s" comment about Obamas hostility towards Free Trade. And "my" comment was about the issue sadly not being on the radar screen currently in the election. I do get the point you are trying to get across though.

Here is some good reading. (and I’ll make a deal with you…. don’t link huffingtonpost or the nation to make your points, and I won’t link drudge or newsma… that’s fair don’t you think)
http://www.tradediversion.net/archives/2008/03/obama_on_trade.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html
[URL]
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4360446&page=1
[/URL] (sorry... looks like boards.ie doesn't like abcnews)
Bottom line as far as I’m concerned about NAFTA… yes it has reduced some jobs in the US. But unemployment has gone down. And although people here complain about NAFTA, they are unwilling to pay triple the costs for those products if they were produced here. It's the Cake and Eat It too thing.

brianthebard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Though the whole 'make sure your tyres are inflated' bit does have merit, I think that part of the problem is that vehicle fuel is not the sole destination of oil. Most is used, I believe, in the production of plastics and polyester.

So while, yes, the US will save a bit of gas by checking the tyres, it will not be of sufficient savings that one can simply choose to ignore the benefits of offshore drilling and call it quits, which appears to be the implication of Obama's statement if you read it in full.

Of note, I caught on the news this morning that the offshore drilling moratorium applies only to companies that are in the US. Foreign nations apparently can still do so. I need to look into that.

NTM

At what stage do you expect to see the benefits of renewed off shore drilling? Tomorrow? Six months? Or several years down the line, if at all?

stretchtex

Hobbes wrote: »

Let me start by saying that McCain not being on TV is probably a good thing. I seriously don't know how he short of rigging or divine intervention could win the election. He can't seem to handle himself unless there is a teleprompter vs Obama who I have seen turn around hostile reporters. He is able to clearly articulate his policies, and point people to the history.

Everytime some smear campaign turns up he clearly points it out for what it is (even has a website with them), sidesteps and tells the truth that Americans are sick of tit-for-tat name calling crap and want someone who is going to take the job serious.

Even the "catch 22" type smear campaigns are back firing for McCain.

And he gets blamed by the Republican for being too presidential? o_O I mean wtf are you supposed to be voting into the Oval Office?

Are you kidding me referring to Obamas eloquent manner of speech? ummm ummm errrr errrr ummm.... "thats above my pay grade?"

Hobbes

stretchtex wrote: »

Are you kidding me referring to Obamas eloquent manner of speech? ummm ummm errrr errrr ummm.... "thats above my pay grade?"

Three words for you.

"Cone of silence". Look it up.

ChocolateSauce

Because McCain is more honest that Obama, even if you disagree with him. The important thing isn't his integrety-that'll count for little as US president. Hiliary is a liar and a scumbag as far as I'm concerned, but she was my first choice because she is a more able candidate.

Manic Moran

brianthebard wrote: »

At what stage do you expect to see the benefits of renewed off shore drilling? Tomorrow? Six months? Or several years down the line, if at all?

If at all, a few years down the line. It may well be that alternate technologies make it irrelevant by then. On the other hand, should they not work out, it's always nice to have a backup plan. If people think oil is expensive now, just wait until ten years from now.

NTM

brianthebard

Offshore drilling isn't a back up plan,its a continuation of the first crappy plan.