Seriously, How Can You Guys Continue To Ignore the McCain/Palin BLATANT LIES?

[BT]

So did you say whether earmarks were a good or bad thing?

What is Obama's position on them?

What is McCains voting record on them?

What is Obama's voting record on them


is "earmarks" a buzzword that people scrunch up their faces about but don't understand what they are really about?

If this is the issue, let's look at it.

[sirs]

Still waiting patiently for an answer

[BT]

Apparently they were for it.

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/

[Knutey]

AK ranks Number One with a bullet in earmarks

Alaska ranks number in earmarks per capita.  A lot of this is probably due to it having the smallest population of any state, even smaller than Rhode Island, and yet it is by far the largest state in the nation in landmass.  Small states don't need as much federal money due to both existing infrastructure and the smaller geographic area, large, rural states such as Alaska are bound to need more.  I detest earmarks and am certain that there is a better system out there, but to misrepresent the earmark/federal money issue to make a political point for your chosen candidate is dishonest.

I definitely disagree that its dishonest.

Is Alaska number one in earmarks per capita?   Yes.  I agree.  It is.  It is number one.

What is dishonest is how McCain/Palin are painting themselves as the holy rollers of reform when Palin has been nothing but supportive of her earmarks and has actively lobbied for them.  If you want to talk about dishonesty.  Let's talk about it but at the very least, could you on the right try to have the common courtesy of having a passing acknowledgment of reality?

That'd be a good place to kick things off.

Brass- By now you surely know that the Rwers in here are moral lepers with no shame. They "create their own reality" which means they lie and relish in it. They think its cute to torture the truth . Major sickos. Sadly themasses are frequently suckered by their evil just as the Good Germans were by Hitler.

[fatman]

I definitely disagree that its dishonest.

Good, I'm happy that we've established that we're in agreement on the subject.

Is Alaska number one in earmarks per capita?   Yes.  I agree.  It is.  It is number one.

Per Capita?  Yes, we've established that also, see my previous post.

What is dishonest is how McCain/Palin are painting themselves as the holy rollers of reform when Palin has been nothing but supportive of her earmarks and has actively lobbied for them.

I haven't disputed that either.  Then again, those earmarks are what get politicians elected a lot of times.  I don't like it but that's how it is.  You seem to be hung up on the hypocrisy of McCain/Palin claiming to be for reform, and I agree that it is hypocritical.  I also believe that it's hypocritical for Obama to continuously spout about change, and then select a running mate who's been in the Senate since the Nixon Administration.  There's more than enough hypocrisy in this campaign on both sides to go around, if you press the issue of hypocrisy then both sides are going to lose that one.

 Let's talk about it but at the very least, could you on the right try to have the common courtesy of having a passing acknowledgment of reality?

Okay.  Evidently you haven't gotten the memo that I'm not "on the right", in fact if you want to get technical I'm all over the place, depending on the issue.  I don't feel that I need to have my political beliefs and the thought processes behind them dictated to me by the RNC or the DNC or whatever.  If you haven't caught wind of that then I guess that you're not paying attention (easy to do, I know how work and home life eats into the 3DHS time!).  But you want an acknowledgement of reality?  As I've tried to explain, AK is the largest state, by far.  It also has the smallest population outside of VT (funny how those on the left are saying that Palin has no experience because she ran a state with such a small population, I didn't hear those on the left making that argument against Dean).  It also has the least established infrastructure (roads, bridges, power grids, internet networks, community water/sewer, libraries, things of that nature) of any state.  Illinois (Obama's state) brought in $386,997,900 in earmarks, ahead of AK's $346,073,350.  Alaska might have the most per capita (and I think that I've tried to explain why that is) but there are several states ahead of AK in pulling down total money (see link at bottom for source).  Alaska also has the most Federal Land, by total area and as percentage of the state, than any other state.  It makes sense to me that lawmakers are going to want earmarks in order for the Fed to pay for itself and its lands (I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it).

But I think that I'm missing your point here, which was the hypocrisy.  Frankly, I could give a shit less about it.  They're politicians, what do you expect?  It's hypocritical for Obama to take an anti-war stance and then to talk about shifting the war to Afghanistan (just how many troops are coming home under that plan, and how many are being reassigned to the Afghani theatre?), if it were a Republican that wanted to do that you'd be howling.  It's hypocritical for Obama to talk about change all of the time and yet we hear the same old tired DNC line.  And yes, McCain and Palin for the most part are parroting the same old RNC line, but as I said, what do you expect?

I'd prefer to take the other road and talk about the actual issues, the proposed policies and how they'll be paid for, proposed by both sides.  Evidently I'm the only one that wants to talk about that, everyone else wants to talk about hypocrisy.

And if you ever have a question Brass on where I stand on an issue, feel free to ask and I'll fill you in.  But don't assume that because I stepped into this debate on the side of McCain/Palin that I'm on the right or even that I'll definitely be voting for them in Nov, because you might be surprised.

Earmarks by state, ranked as total and per capita

[sirs]

I'd prefer to take the other road and talk about the actual issues, the proposed policies and how they'll be paid for, proposed by both sides.  Evidently I'm the only one that wants to talk about that, everyone else wants to talk about hypocrisy.

sirs confesses he's been having more enjoyment in highlighting Democrat dupilicty & hypocrisy, then addressing specific policies.  I'll endeavor to talk more policy with you, Fat.  Do you favor Obama's plan to increase taxes on most income tax paying citizens, along with raising capital gains taxes & estate taxes?

[fatman]

Do you favor Obama's plan to increase taxes on most income tax paying citizens, along with raising capital gains taxes & estate taxes?

I'd prefer whatever is closest to a flat tax.  Penalizing someone for the ingenuity of hard work and building a business is not conducive to economic development in the country.  I would dump the tax breaks for companies that outsource their workers overseas and I would probably also be in favor in rolling back tax breaks on the petroleum companies.  In fact, I'd probably be in favor of rolling back all corporate tax breaks, with the exception of those companies that still utilize American workers and American materials.

To answer your question simply though, I'd say no.  I think money earned in income should be taxed once, not 40 times like it currently is.  If you're going to deduct money from my paycheck, fine.  When I take that money and invest it in the stock market, you don't need to deduct that money again.  When I die and leave it to my partner or my non-existent children, you can keep your hands off of it.  One thing that really irritates me is that when I work a standard 40 hours a week, I take home a much higher percentage than I do in my current situation where I'm working 60+ hours a week.  There should be a tax system that doesn't penalize people for working overtime.

Lastly, I'm not in favor of raising the child tax credit.  To be honest, I'm not really in favor of the tax credit at all, though I understand why some think it is a necessity.  If you want to have children, I'm supportive of that.  I'm not supportive of paying more in tax than you do because you had kids, I understand that kids are expensive but you made that choice when you decided to have one or 12.  Taxes should be equitable and distributed evenly, not focused solely on the rich or solely on the poor for that matter.  Tax breaks are generally bad in my opinion, get rid of them and you might be able to lower taxes for everyone.

[sirs]

Do you favor Obama's plan to increase taxes on most income tax paying citizens, along with raising capital gains taxes & estate taxes?

I'd prefer whatever is closest to a flat tax.  Penalizing someone for the ingenuity of hard work and building a business is not conducive to economic development in the country.....To answer your question simply though, I'd say no.  I think money earned in income should be taxed once, not 40 times like it currently is.  If you're going to deduct money from my paycheck, fine.  When I take that money and invest it in the stock market, you don't need to deduct that money again.  When I die and leave it to my partner or my non-existent children, you can keep your hands off of it.  One thing that really irritates me is that when I work a standard 40 hours a week, I take home a much higher percentage than I do in my current situation where I'm working 60+ hours a week.  There should be a tax system that doesn't penalize people for working overtime. 

Agreed on each and every front

Lastly, I'm not in favor of raising the child tax credit.  To be honest, I'm not really in favor of the tax credit at all, though I understand why some think it is a necessity.  If you want to have children, I'm supportive of that.  I'm not supportive of paying more in tax than you do because you had kids, I understand that kids are expensive but you made that choice when you decided to have one or 12.

Can I get an Amen??       



Ok, let's touch on McCain.....do you favor his position on opening offshore drilling excluding ANWR, and his intentions on continuing to prosecute the war on Islamofascism/Militant Islam?  Do you think McCain supports whatever version of the Bush Doctrine Charlie Gibson is currently using?

[fatman]

do you favor his position on opening offshore drilling excluding ANWR

Yes and no.  I tend to think that the oil companies should use the leases they have first (there must be oil there or why would they be paying the lease?) before drilling elsewhere.  The potential for an environmental disaster in the Gulf Coast is highlighted by the hurricane seasons of the past couple of years; I think that is an important factor to recognize also.  Is the oil worth the risk of depleting the fisheries stocks in the area?  But I'm not opposed to more drilling, I'd like to drill and pursue alternatives at the same time, and I think that can be done. 

I don't see what the problem with drilling in the ANWR is.  The Alaskans want it, it's their state and I'd take their say over some environmental group that wants to shut down everything.  True, both sides have a vested interest in whatever the outcome is, but I'll take the local interest over the environmental one on this issue.  Part of the problem with this issue is that from the 70's on the Federal Government has orchestrated one land grab after another in Alaska, usually without compensation to Alaskans.  Yes, national parks and forests are important and I'll be the first in line to argue that, but you don't need to turn the entire state into a Federal preserve.

and his intentions on continuing to prosecute the war on Islamofascism/Militant Islam

Well, you're aware that you and I have sharp disagreements on the war.  I'm generally in favor of leaving Iraq and putting more of a focus on Afghanistan (I think that I'm more aligned with Obama here).  That said, personally I think that it's only a matter of time before the Iraqi's kick us out, whether they're ready or not.  While I understand your argument that we broke Iraq so it's our job to fix it, I don't necessarily agree with the argument, especially when they're sitting on a multi-billion dollar surplus and we're running a deficit that's in the hundreds of billions.  I think personally that Iraq is kind of a moot point in five years, the Iraqi government is under pressure from their populace to rid the nation of its American helpers and I think that is a reality that isn't far away.  It looks like the Iraqi's are going to end the war before we do.

I think that it all boils down to how McCain wants to prosecute this war, whether it's going to be an actual war or if it's going to be soundbites and power grabs (via Patriot Act & FISA) as it has been.  I'm starting to think that this war on terror, while grounded in some reality is starting to look a hell of a lot like the war on drugs, where it's an excuse to seize power (usually un or extra constitutionally) and fund a lot of stupid expense.  Bumfart, IA doesn't need a multimillion dollar terror response vehicle, but places like this are getting these things under Homeland Security grants.  To me that's flat wrong.  The other side of the coin is the "POW's".  Get these people a damned trial, I'm not interested in what we did in WWII or whatever, but when we have people sitting in a prison for 6+ years without any hearing or trial, that looks to me like the government has something to hide.  Whether they do or not, I don't know, but it looks really bad.  The terrorists of 9/11 wanted to change our way of life, the way that America views things.  If we allow that to happen, then I think the terrorists have one, no matter how many of them we kill or how many cells we track down.  When they've coerced the US into becoming a tyrant, the game is over.  And I think that we're close to that.

If McCain has ideas that will end the issue, I'm all for hearing them, especially if they're not the super secret classified crap that we have going on already.  It's a decision that all Americans need to be involved in, secrecy looks bad, whether it is or not.

Do you think McCain supports whatever version of the Bush Doctrine Charlie Gibson is currently using

To be honest, I don't know.  I haven't watched the interviews, generally because the questions aren't something that I care a whole lot about and the phrasing is atrocious.  I'd have to wait and see McCain's response.  I don't like the Bush doctrine at all.  I think that it's a bad precedent for the world, if we can do it what's going to stop other nations from doing it too?  And what constitutes a threat (I mean this more for other nations than ours, but the question also has some legitimacy here too)?

[sirs]

Ideological differences abound, though the practicality of your positions, can't be denied.  I'm not at liberty to go into great detail (at this moment) regarding my stances on the offshore drilling, and the desire to lessen our dependence on foreign sources or power, not to mention the whole idea of improving the U.S. dollar by way of improving our own oil exportations.  What I will say is that, despite the horrendous initial positions McCain has had regarding immigration and campaign finance, I can only pray that he and Palin will practice what they preached at the GOP convention.....Fiscal responsibility, Government accountability, Fair taxation, Security, and Constitutional protection, all being at the top of that prayer list.

Let's change tact a tad here......(since its easier & quicker to ask pointed questions    ).....Is Obama's lack of experience & judgement a concern with you, from someone who wants to be making the command decisions for this country?

and, Is McCain's age & being a long term legislator, with not a whit of executive experience, a concern with you?

Who "concerns" you the most?

[Plane]

Do you think McCain supports whatever version of the Bush Doctrine Charlie Gibson is currently using

To be honest, I don't know.  I haven't watched the interviews, generally because the questions aren't something that I care a whole lot about and the phrasing is atrocious.  I'd have to wait and see McCain's response.  I don't like the Bush doctrine at all.  I think that it's a bad precedent for the world, if we can do it what's going to stop other nations from doing it too?  And what constitutes a threat (I mean this more for other nations than ours, but the question also has some legitimacy here too)?

What was there ever to prevent one nation from invading another?
There is always a reason available.

The justification has to be to the electorate , first and second , rest of the world third,....maybe.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Still waiting patiently for an answer

=================================
Wait forever, you duplicitious fool. No one cares one damn about your bogus "questions", not have any answer to any such questions ever pleased you in the least.

Wait until they can be used as epitaphs.

[BT]

Wait forever, you duplicitious fool. No one cares one damn about your bogus "questions", not have any answer to any such questions ever pleased you in the least.

Wait until they can be used as epitaphs

Any reason for the personal insults?

[Xavier_Onassis]

This would be that the supposed "patient waiting" for "answers" to "questions" is a constant annoying habit of sirs. He never accepts anyone's answers, and most often changes the supposed meaning of his "questions" whenever anyone calls him on it.

It is simply an emphatic way of reminding everyone to just let him continue to wait, since his "questions" are always just a ruse.

[BT]

This would be that the supposed "patient waiting" for "answers" to "questions" is a constant annoying habit of sirs. He never accepts anyone's answers, and most often changes the supposed meaning of his "questions" whenever anyone calls him on it.

It is simply an emphatic way of reminding everyone to just let him continue to wait, since his "questions" are always just a ruse.

Try to keep the insults out of the body of your replies. Just mumble to yourself.

It makes for a more pleasant board.