John McCain on The View - Is he really ready to be president?

Actually I think that's the point Guerilla has been making and why many (myself included) would like to see a third party that would actually do more about fiscal responsibility than just talk about it.

That said, the 92 election where we had a strong showing by a third party and it split the vote of fiscal conservatives and handed the election to the candidate whose views were the least in sync with the views of the majority that voted... which shows the danger involved in third party runs. That doesnt mean everyone who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush Sr in his absence, but generally opinion is that his candidacy siphoned primarily from that camp.

 

Ok now that you agree Mccain is not good for the country stop being dishonest and stop supporting him.
sit out or vote for someone that you like

 

I disagree that it's a 'danger' it's a necessity. With 3 parties we could have parties actually sticking up to what they believe and not pandering as much. As it is now it's a 50/50 chance damn near that either of the top 2 will win the presidency. 'as in it's so close, both parties really have a 50% shot each cycle give or take a few points'

With 3 main parties the tune would change for the better. Less pandering, less flip flopping, actual choices to support someone you actually support and not based off of the idiotic liberal V conservative.

 

Democrats control the Senate and the House of Representatives and could have made changes in the economy, war or the ever growing debt but they have done nothing to help the US. Obama is a great speaker that can flash a smile but he is not the man of action as a senator that he is misleading everyone into believing. Obama did not stand for hope or change while in Washington and he will not be a man of action if elected. Obama hands run deep into the pockets of special interest groups that are sending money to him at a faster rate than ever with Obama losing at the polls. Obama’s smear campaign on Palin has back fired and Obama is afloat in a sinking ship that he may not be able to survive. Obama unfounded counter productive attacks on Palin will cease but the damage his campaign created will not be undone. Obama’s anti-American actions of refusing to pledge and wear the flag pin have raised more than a few eyebrows and those actions will not be forgotten.


A second-rate community organizer that was more concerned with being a politician than helping the people that he was suppose to help has no business being President.

 

Talk about spin.

A slight majority when the president constantly warns of veto that they can not overcome is hardly putting them in the place of power that you claim.

 

republicans have damaged the country so much
for example they kept dumbfeld [he is not a candidate] in office despite his huge failure in the job.

 

On this notion of multiparty systems, two things.

1. There are benefits, and downsides, to them. The benefits include a more participle inheritance in the political process, obviously - smaller voices can gain traction, to become bigger voices. On the downside, you can have absolute stasis, at best, and a virtual civil war, in effect, at worst. Postwar Italy is instructive in this regard.

2. The reasons two party systems, or multiparty systems, grow and thrive, are often not as easily seen as we would think. So much of it goes to underlying social structures - embedded by historical inertia - that have nothing to do with surface appearances (i.e., mass discontent, the Perot phenomenon, etc.). I've touched on this before, and as it seems germane, I'll post it again. This was my area of research, and I hope it's a useful jumping off point for consideration:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=8085521&postcount=26

 

Any member of the Senate and the House of Representatives could have done more than what they have done. All the blame is being placed on Bush but the fact of the matter is that each elected official that is in Washington is just as responsible as Bush.

Are you saying that the President has the power of a dictator and you are given a pass to everyone else?

 

I do not give a pass to anyone, nor do I blame everything on the president.

I however do not make false claims such as yourself that blame only the democratic party.

 

It is not only Bush but the whole republican party. they fought tooth and nail to stop them in every turn
Republicans have damaged the country beyond belief.
for example
people were asking about iraqi oil and were shot down by the republicans. Now we know that they have 70 billion dollars in the bank.

 

Great spin grim.

I don't just blame the Dems and you know it. I blame both the Dems and the Republicans and the President.

 

Yes, I agree - this is the point Guerilla has been making. Fiscally, there is very little difference between the two candidates, and though I find it a bit overbroad, the notion of "warfare/welfare" isn't an empty term.

Reagan cut taxes, dismantled social programs, and simply spent liberally on defense. The result was a massive budget bleed that has never recovered. McCain is in this tradition, and Obama is in the tradition of FDR. One either accepts either tradition as founded on sound principle, or one rejects the tradition. But to somehow paint John McCain as the fiscal disciplinarian, and Obama as the lone, wanton spendthrift, well, from what I see, this isn't accurate.

 

No spin involved, you did not mention anything about republicans being to blame in your post, in fact you stated they 'democrats' had all the power to do everything but did nothing 'paraphrased'

All the while leaving out those pesky facts that they could not of done it as simply as you claim as they barely have a majority, in the senate the majority could be argued that they are deadlocked in fact last I heard, plus the fact that the president has veto power that the dems can not overcome, veto power he has threatened many times. Making your entire anti democrat rant 'which did not include republicans or the president' totally misleading, false and nothing more than spin.

Sorry I don't need to spin your posts, you do enough damage yourself

 

I have been very critical of republicans in other threads and you know this. I also have pointed out that local government are just as bad as the washington crowd if not worse.

Like I said nice spin Grim.

 

No spin at all, you still are not admitting the fact that the dems barely hold a majority, a majority that means nothing when the President threatens a veto.

Making your entire point pretty much false.

 

Why support the party that you know is bad for the country.
sit this one out. let different people in the driver seat, maybe they will look at the map and find the road again.
Mccain wants to do things based on his gut feeling. Map means nothing to him.
He is dangerous reckless and rash.

 

GUNS vs BUTTER
Looking at it in the context of the time, Reagan was correct to divert spending from social programs to defense.

The comparison of Obama to FDR in terms of policy is not wholly inaccurate in that FDR favored government as a solution to pretty much everything, but breaks down in that FDR was in a very different situation and did in fact do massive buildup in defense spending... but again its a context of the times thing, FDR had WW2 to deal with.

The Bureaucracy Hangover
Essentially FDR was credited with leading us out of the great depression via his actions but the wartime production was also credited as was the unifying of the country to work toward that effort. Not an apples to apples comparison available. I see parallels in places and some areas that cannot be compared. I doubt anyone thinks FDR was anything but an excellent president for his time, though the Webber Principle expansion of the bureaucracies that went in place has become a bit of a problem since.

Supporting ALL 10 of the "Bill of Rights" Would Be Nice
Part of my opposition to Obama centers on his party's stance toward domestic issues... they've paid lip service to the 2nd amendment while voting to weaken its meaning for starters. As far as Obama's record on that... one example of his "actions" include a law that was passed during Obama's time in the state house to protect citizens that used a gun for self protection. It was passed despite his vote against it.

During the same timeframe he pushed to have concealed carry laws in all other states removed because they threatened the safety of Illinois citizens. His record on votes that concern the 2nd amendment is weak regardless of his rhetoric.

TAXES and Redistribution of Wealth
Taxes are simply money the government takes from the pocket of the person that earns the money. Saying you will increase taxes on the wealthy and use it to benefit those that make less is redistribution of wealth no matter how worthy one considers the goal.

When the income tax was initially implemented in the early 1900s there were those that opposed it... predicting it might someday get up to as high as 10%... or "as high as the Lord's tithe" as they put it. They were laughed off as chicken little types. Now people would laugh at the idea of it ever going DOWN to 10%.

The DNC has for a considerable time acted as if it is the role of governent to create an involuntary redistribution of wealth thru the tax code.There is nothing in the constitution that suggests redistribution of wealth is a proper role of government. That principle isnt a function of capitalism... but it IS a stated goal in another well known economic system.

 

The point that neither party has stepped up to the plate. Are you serious? The whole platform of Obama is change and yet he has not changed anything a senator.

His platform would have more strength if could state "I introduced a bill only to have it vetoed." Or "I introduced this bill and the economy is changing." He has not been a man of action even with a majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives.


Your point is false and Obama enjoys your free pass.

 

republicans can't deliver on anything. They have broken everything while trying to fix it
Both you and homes are pushing someone that you know is no good
WHY?

 

That's an extremely articulate and convincing argument. I hereby withdraw my previous objections stated in the prior post. Thanks for clearing it up.