So McCain says that we shouldnt be scared of Obama as president

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Fair enough if it's based on the issues and not the endless wildfire of 'fluff'. It's the lack of respect that so many posters show for those who don't agree with them that ticks me off.




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I know what you mean and i completely agree with you. I've gotten caught up in it before, and i'm trying to stay away from it. People can be vicious with the personal attacks and snide remarks. Some sound worse than the very politicians they are complaining about. I'd much rather take the high road whenever possible.

Questions should be raised and discussed, but without getting angry and personal.




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 

Here's the thing, powerful people are connected to powerful people. Not all those who have attained a position of influence have done so while observing the ethical and legal letter of the law. That means that it's easy to mount false equivalency attacks against powerful people.

I've never heard of a prominent politician who didn't have banking ties or real estate ties. And both of those fields are overflowing with corrupt businessmen engaging in illicit business practices. Running for public office doesn't seem to be a priority for bankers and real estate developers. Though it's easy to understand why those types wouldn't run for office. Bankers and real estate developers are powerful enough to put other people into office. No need for the money and the mortar to sacrifice themselves when a brick would do just fine.

The Clinton's were involved in banking and real estate scandals. Plus a sex scandal. They used up all of their allowances. Dick Cheney has his ties to Halliburton which has haunted the present White House every now and then. George W. Bush is in with the oil cartels. His father, George H. W. Bush, was in with the drug cartels. And his father, Prescott Bush, was in with the Nazis. Barack Obama focused on community building, low income housing, and education, and he couldn't avoid making connections to a former 60's radical or a corrupt real estate developer.

All in the previous list have banking ties.

How many politicians are associated with lobbyists? Or should I ask, how many lobbyists are associated with politicians?

How many politicians in Washington over the past 20 years have not been connected to Jack Abramoff at some point? John McCain wishes to heaven that he were free of that association.

Anyway, every politician creates a distortion field. They have to. Even if they are one of the good guys.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Very well said. I do have respect for the Obama campaign for not dredging this up on McCain like they could. It does say something about the man and his character. Something else that I feel has not been brought up, but is important is the education background of all four candidates which I found on another thread:


Originally posted by Douggie
Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in
International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
vs.
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899
Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semest er
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism GPA 2.2


If you were hiring a team to run your company, which team would you hire? After all, this is really a big job interview, isn't it? I think we all know how well the last C student we 'hired' did.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Well...you are right...Obama's campaign hasn't had to go there. Why would they? They are winning. Why would they bother? Switch the polls around...i guarantee you they'd be singing a different tune. They did get a bit tougher when the polls evened up...and eased up afterward. The economy tanks and he reaps all the rewards from it.

I don't think he's going to change things like everyone seems to think. He won't serve 2 terms if he gets in. Just wait till unemployment hits over 10 percent. And he's going to want to raise corporate taxes to make it worse. He should change his stance on this...but he has the public loving his tax break for 95 percent of people...i'm sure they'll be happy to get that tax break on their unemployment checks.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 



The economy tanks and he reaps all the rewards from it.

Please tell me......

Why is it not John McCain not "reaping" the rewards of our failed economy???



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Grafilthy
 


Obama gained big in the polls when when the economy hit a major downturn. Republican was in the white house. McCain is a republican.

I don't know why i need to answer this. The incumbent party always takes a hit in bad times. Democrat or republican...it's all the same.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
There was proof of wmds however something called politics prevented the white house screaming from the roof tops.


With all due respect, I call it a speculation. I'm not saying I have a proof that negates your statement, but given what I know it's extremely unlikely.


We cant come out and say Syria has them without being willing to invade Syria.


Well sheesh, apparenlty Israel can take out a massive nuclear facility in Syria, with bombers and actual specops on the ground, and we can't even mention Syria has WMDs? I don't see merit in your statement.


Heres another shocker for you Since its common knowledge that he had wmds used when he fought iran, where did they go? Oh never mind go back to your tv its almost time for the news.


If you saw Saddams bio weapons labs, or an experimental nuke he was ready to lob at the US, please share this info because it will be the most interesting read of my life. I'll send you caviar and champagne (serious). If you don't have anything other than rumors and whatever the defectors fabricated to inflate their value, I'm sorry this just isn't good enough.

I'm sorry but I had enough of unsubstantiated WMD innuendo.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 



Republican was in the white house. McCain is a republican.

You failed to say exactly WHO the republican in the White House is. You also failed to mention the part where McCain wants to CONTINUE down the same slippery slope of failed policies said idiot #1 led us down. That is the concern....at least how I see it.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





If you saw Saddams bio weapons labs, or an experimental nuke he was ready to lob at the US, please share this info because it will be the most interesting read of my life. I'll send you caviar and champagne (serious).

On the money! ( I got 5 on it )



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Grafilthy
 


My concern is that Congress has a lower approval rating than the GW. Democrats have had control of it for 2 years. Weren't they supposed to fix everything? You don't think they had a hand in the financial crisis? They are just as much to blame if not more than anyone else.

Voting for a Democrat just because the person is a Democrat is just ridiculous to me. I don't decide whom i think is best for the country based on their political party. I vote for who i think has our country's best interests at heart.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
One prominent Republican, Chris T. Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, Jr., is not afraid of Barack Obama. Chris T. Buckley walked the talk and has gone the distance to endorse Barack Obama. And look what happened next:


Christopher Buckley, the author and son of the late conservative mainstay William F. Buckley, said in a telephone interview that he has resigned from the National Review, the political journal his father founded in 1955.

Mr. Buckley said he had “been effectively fatwahed by the conservative movement” after endorsing Barack Obama in a blog posting on TheDailyBeast.com; since then, he said he has been blanketed with hate mail at the blog and at the National Review, where he has written a column.

As a result, he wrote to Richard Lowry, the editor of the National Review, and its publisher, Jack Fowler, offering to resign, and “this offer was rather briskly accepted,” Mr. Buckley said.

Mr. Buckley said he did not understand the sense of betrayal that some of his conservative colleagues felt, but said that the fury and ugly comments his endorsement generated is “part of
the calcification of modern discourse. It’s so angry.” Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan’s quote about the Democrats, Mr. Buckley added, “I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.”
NY Times

It seems hatred is a central theme of the Republican campaign this season. So much for solidarity combined with individual initiative.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Do you honestly think Joe Lieberman is fairing any better? It is a two way street and no one is immune from the hatred.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 

To be fair......

No one like Lieberman.






top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join