9 reasons to vote for John McCain

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
1. You want more troops in Iraq. - yep, I want us to win *gasp*
2. You believe we should have permanent military bases in Iraq -- for "100 years" or more. - stupid point
3. You want the U.S. to spend more money on the war on drugs. - drugs are bad, mmkay. They hurt the poor the most, and minorities. If you really are a fuzzy bleeding heart liberal, what's your beef with the war on drugs?
4. You want abortions to be banned in the US. - ban the murder of unborn babies? not in my land!
5. You want people to be jailed longer for drug crimes. - stupid point
6. You support the USA PATRIOT act. - stupid point, unless you want to point out parts of it you don't like.
7. You believe corporations should pay less in taxes. - stupid point, you can only squeeze so much out of a corporation before it hurts it's ability to hire employee's or pay them fair wages.
8. You support the "without warrant" surveillance of Americans making phone calls to other countries. - I got almost no opinion on this, except to say that if we know a phone call is being placed to a known terrorist, we better be monitoring it.
9. You believe liberty comes from God!!! - check. If you dont' believe in God you will believe in anything.


I wasn't happy when McCain got nominated, but he'll get my vote over Obama or Clinton any day.

God I'm just looking around the boards and you are crapping all over them.

Your replies to 3, 5, 6, and 9 are exceptionally stupid, the other ones are just a mix of things I disagree with and ignorance.

3.) As for the war on drugs, anyone who has done even the smallest bit of reading on how the war on drugs is being implemented would know why those interested in helping the poor are not interested in keeping it going the way it is.

5.) See response to #3, but your reply was stupid.

6.) Isn't saying you don't like the PATRIOT act by definition saying you don't like things in it? Every bill (almost) has pluses and minuses to it, people who want the PATRIOT act repealed think the minuses so massively outweigh the pluses that we should scrap the whole thing. That is unless you are trying to imply there are people objecting to it because they don't like the name?

What you wrote for #9 requires no refutation, it was just dumb.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mail5398

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Mail5398
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06....html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Ireland is a very good example of what should happen in this country. Educate the workforce and make it cheaper for businesses to do business in the U.S.


It really is that simple but most politicians are mental retards. You do not attract companies to the U.S. by reducing profit. Corporations can locate anywhere they want to.

You do realize that Ireland has universal healthcare paid for through taxes and also caps annual tuition for college, right?

Part of the reason that we are getting less educated people joining the workforce is because education is now becoming a privilege of the privileged instead of something that is affordable for all.

Some of the colleges in the US are charging well over $50k/yr for tuition while Ireland (actually all of UK) is capped at $3k pounds a year for ALL universities no matter your stature.

I would like to see the tax structure overhauled. I also would like to see corporate taxes, small business taxes, etc. abolished. We should focus on taxing individuals.

Will we be getting rid of this silly notion of juristic persons for corporations, too? If not, then corporations are legally considered to be individuals, and I see no reason why one group of individuals should get preferential treatment over another.

 

[Vic]

And to the people who will be voting for McCain because you support the war and hate socialism:
Clearly this is the best you can do to justify your own brand of socialism while whining and crying about the evils of some other.
The problem you're having trying to sell your point is that when you have someone like me, stuck between 2 different brands of stealing my money for my own good, as I am with little other choice... and one brand is stealing it to kill people in some foreign land, and the other to build something here in our country, the choice is pretty obvious.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mail5398

I would like to see the tax structure overhauled. I also would like to see corporate taxes, small business taxes, etc. abolished. We should focus on taxing individuals.

Will we be getting rid of this silly notion of juristic persons for corporations, too? If not, then corporations are legally considered to be individuals, and I see no reason why one group of individuals should get preferential treatment over another.

That was pretty good.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
And to the people who will be voting for McCain because you support the war and hate socialism:
Clearly this is the best you can do to justify your own brand of socialism while whining and crying about the evils of some other.
The problem you're having trying to sell your point is that when you have someone like me, stuck between 2 different brands of stealing my money for my own good, as I am with little other choice... and one brand is stealing it to kill people in some foreign land, and the other to build something here in our country, the choice is pretty obvious.

:thumbsup:

 

[StageLeft]

Funny thing is, I'm on board with at least a couple of those, but not most of them

 

[hellod9]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Funny thing is, I'm on board with at least a couple of those, but not most of them

Interesting. The items I chose on the list were meant to highlight the differences between McCain & Obama...not necessarily to show McCain in a bad or good light. I'll admit, that MOST of these I'm very strongly against, while one or two I am undecided about.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic
More than half of America either works for small business or is self-employed.

IOW, subsidize your own job, thank you very much. I don't get a welfare check and I'm sick of paying for your corporate welfare.

I agree, corporate welfare is the worst kind of welfare.

 

[DealMonkey]

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

And don't get me started on corporate welfare for big oil.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What's scary is that people exist in this country that actually agree with points 1-9.

Amazing how much bigotry is on the left and/or Godless.

Do you ever listen to yourself talk?

You believe liberty comes from God!!! - check. If you dont' believe in God you will believe in anything.

Bigotry? Check.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
Will we be getting rid of this silly notion of juristic persons for corporations, too? If not, then corporations are legally considered to be individuals, and I see no reason why one group of individuals should get preferential treatment over another.

Under tax law, corporations are "persons", only humans are "individuals".

But there are arguements for abolishment of taxation at the corporate level. One is that it is a regressive tax (it can be demonstated mathematically), another is that taxation fosters waste vise-a-vis deductions. Would corporations really cut back back on big private jets and lavish parties etc if those wren't deductible, and therefore somewhat subsidized by the government? IDK, But it is/was taught as reason to abolish corporate taxation. However, it's politically impossible.

Fern

 

[Phokus]

Is Duwelon some kind of gimmick account or something? I have a hard time believing someone on the AT forums can be THAT stupid.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: hellod9
IF....


1. You want more troops in Iraq.
I'll leave that up to the military, IDK myself what's needed there. I am concerned about a precipitous withdrawl and believe we have a responsibility (to an extent) to fix what we broke. Personally, I think there is progress in Iraq, even within their government. E.g., as usual not seen here, but I recently read that one of the factions that split from the government is now coming back. I think we'll know a lot more by the end of the year - the UN madate for our presence is expiring and Iraqi elections are schedule for November IIRC.

Otherwise, if one of the Dem candidates is elected, my guess is that many will be surprised to see how much actual difference there will NOT be in Iraq policy. The rhetoric is different, but I seriously doubt much else will be.

Surge or no, progress or not, I don't support a big presence by us past '09 at the latest.

2. You believe we should have permanent military bases in Iraq -- for "100 years" or more.
If the conditions are good and the bases are similar to those elswhere, I don't have a problem with it.

To the contrary, I'd like to see us develop a close friendly relationship with an Arab country in the region. We are an ally with Isreal, it would be great to have Iraq as an ally if conditions permit. It would goes far in diminshing our perception of bias in favoring Israel over the Arab countries.

3. You want the U.S. to spend more money on the war on drugs.
No, I don't. But I don't see that happening with any of these candidates. I.e., it's irrelevant since there is no difference.

Plus, I don't think that's a McCain campaign platform


4. You want abortions to be banned in the US.
False statement. The SCOTUS will not declare abortion illegal if they overturn Roe v Wade. Rather, it will be left up to the people/states to decide. If Roe v Wade is overturned abortion will not instantly or axiomatically become illegal, states will have to pass their own laws to make it so. I prefer the old Constitution (the one prior to the civil war) with much stronger states rights, and less federal government power, so I would not be disturbed by this were it to occur.

5. You want people to be jailed longer for drug crimes.
Nope, nor was I aware that this was a McCain campaign platform?

6. You support the USA PATRIOT act.
I support the one that I think exists. Many here think it means wiretapping of US citizens, I don't. Nor would I support that if it were to occur without a warrent.

7. You believe corporations should pay less in taxes.
I'm hearing that we have the 2nd highest tax rates in the world for corporate, so yes I support lowering it to be more competitive. We'll end up with more revenue that way, probably less outsourcing too.

Also, I was unaware that this was a McCain campaign platform?

8. You support the "without warrant" surveillance of Americans making phone calls to other countries.
Nope, not US citizens, nor have I sen proof this is policy. I have seen cases where it was an administrative error.

9. You believe liberty comes from God!!!
I don't see the relevance. "Liberty" itself is what's important. I see no need to argue about it's "source" at this point.

(For the 4th time) I must say I was unaware McCain was running on the "source" of liberty at part of his campaign platform. Are you making some of these up yourself?


...then you know you should support John McCain!
Meh, I wish I had better choices

See bolded responses above.

Fern

 

[miniMUNCH]

point 4 - Well... i think believe abortion is murder and absolutely barbaric. I would be very happy to see abortion outlawed except in the rare cases of medical necessity.

point 3 and 5 -- I think drug related crimes need to be punished severely.

point 1 -- As for the war... wish it hadn't happened but we are there now and we have to see it through. How to best do that is the real issue... just pulling out would be really, really bad on our part.

Not really sure #2 is in McCain's plan...

points 6 and 8 - I have problems with anyone escalating the patriot act and surveillance, in general. But I am also willing to live with the consequences.

9. The equality and liberty due to all men and women is based in morality. In the absence of a moral basis, there is nothing 'wrong' with murder and oppression and the like... it is just the way things 'are'. So yes... liberty as a human right is derived from a moral conscience and so it could well be said that it comes from God.

 

[sportage]

McCain is fooling himself.
He said 100 years and he meant 100 years of war. 100 years!
ANyone who thinks we can have a peacekeeping force in Iraq without
them constantly being shot at and targeted, is having more of a senior
moment than McCain.
100 years in Iraq will simply mean 100 years of violent war.
Peacekeeping force is just another word for troops.
If any peacekeeping force needs to engage in battle, thats war...!
And you better believe it, that any peacekeeping force will be
engaged in battle for the duration.

McCain knows what he said... and said what he meant.
Quoting McCain as stating 100 years of war is a correct and accurate quotation.

Are you ready, under McCain, to hear nightly on the news, "today another peace keeper was killed while keeping the peace. Requiring an immediate military response."
And hearing that nightly for 100 years???

Come-on people, wise up for once!!!!!

 

[BoomerD]

There are only 2 good reasons to vote for McCain...

He's Male
He's White.


Those are the only two qualifications that many people are even considering...

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Still waiting on folks who agree with point 9 to elaborate on what they believe the source of liberty to be, if not God.

The notions of "freedom" and "liberty" weren't needed or even conceptualized during most of the history of Mankind. They arose as organized societies developed and man oppressed man. Until very recently "civilized" man wasn't very free at all: if you lived in a society with an elite class of which you weren't a member, or if you were a member of a distinct minority in a society where the rules were defined by the majority, your freedom to act as you wished was severely constrained.

If God were the source of freedom and liberty, how come it's taken so long for free societies to evolve? How come the story of civilization has been - for the most part - anything but free? How come so many CURRENT societies aren't free?

The answer is just what loki said: "Practical" freedom comes from mankind, not from any Creator. The fact the the Framers used the word "Creator" is merely a reflection of their own beliefs; it's hardly proof of the divine origins of freedom, and using it as such is a classic flaw of argumentation called "appeal to authority."

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1
Still waiting on folks who agree with point 9 to elaborate on what they believe the source of liberty to be, if not God.

Do you mean agree or disagree with point 9? I'll assume disagree.

God in this context is a generic term. You could interchange it with words like Nature, Creator (like in the DoI), or whatever. The point is that inherent rights don't have a source. They just are. A priori.

The US Army has a saying about discipline. It goes, "The Army can't actually make you do anything, it can just make you wish you had."

All inherent rights exist that way. The government can't take away my right to speak freely (without killing me), no matter how hard it might try to do so. Every other inherent right is exactly the same way. They exist until taken away by force. But contrast against the so-called positive rights, and they're not that way. They don't exist until given.

If you need God as a source for that which just is, so be it. But, like all of science, it's not necessary to provide any source for something which is a priori.

So...

Religious Person : I have a right to speak freely because God gave it to us.

Non-Religious Person : I have a right to speak freely because it just is.

Am I getting your drift?

I'd put is this way: You have the ability to speak. You will tend to be less guarded in what you say (and therefore feel more "free") if the society in which you live tolerates dissenting or unpleasant views. You will tend to be more guarded (and feel less free) if the society is less tolerant.

Once you introduce the concept of "rights," things get muddy. For example, do we truly have an inalienable right to liberty? Your reflex response might be "yes," but clearly even societies that proclaim your inalienable right to liberty will take your liberty away if you break certain of the society's rules.

ALWAYS, societies infringe on liberty to a greater or lesser extent, and the justification is almost always that certain exercises of liberty are harmful to yourself, others, and/or to the society, and therefore won't be allowed.

So, to me, the notion of "inherent" liberty is kind of meaningless, as just what is "inherent" is always defined by the society, whether you like it or not.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is this universe in which potentially sentient beings arose who can feel infinite oceanic love for all creation. The lover and the beloved are one and love is totally free. God, the universe, science and man all agree we are free right back to the very first atom. Freedom is at the ground of our being and every human child born will seek it. It's in the genes.

Silly Moonbeam, you periodically refer to these uplifted beings, but somehow have never introduced us to a single one or proffered any evidence that they exist. I think you have a powerful need for sentient beings with infinite oceanic love, and - voila! - we have a new religion.

All the evidence I've seen indicates that humans are meat-bodies just like the rest of the critters on Earth. I don't mean that in any demeaning way: humans have great big brains, and have an emotional life (probably) not equaled by any other creature this side of Pluto. I'm happy to be one. But where's your evidence that humans are anything more than can be observed and measured?

And where do you get this, "God, the universe, science and man all agree we are free right back to the very first atom?" First of all, I and most of the rest of the human race don't agree. So you must think "man" means "some humans." Um, that's incorrect. Furthermore, "freedom" is not a subject that science addresses, so I don't see how "science" could agree, either. As to "the universe" agreeing - well, I think you were just trying to be lyrical. Finally, isn't it God who dooms anyone who doesn't accept Him? That doesn't seem particularly tolerant of dissenting views.

Come to think of it, you haven't even bothered to define what you mean by "free." If as you state every atom of us is free, then you must think were "absolutely" free. That sounds very elevated, but for those of us working day jobs, give us a little something we can get ahold of.