2008 US Presidential Election - Page 94

On October 03 2008 11:13 BalliSLife wrote:


Right, then it's people like mccain that determines who freakin dies right? because media is used to persuade the general public into voting for someone like bush and mc cain, by telling people it's alright, we're winning when its completely obvious this is a losing war.

On October 03 2008 11:32 Savio wrote:
She had a better closing statement.

On October 03 2008 11:38 fusionsdf wrote:


really?

I thought her closing statements was one her worst answers

On October 03 2008 11:37 Savio wrote:


The change in deaths coincided with the surge and the change in strategy imposed by General Petraeus. So yes, policy makers and generals DO affect the number of deaths because they can contribute to success or failure.

On October 03 2008 11:38 fusionsdf wrote:


really?

I thought her closing statements was one her worst answers

On October 03 2008 09:54 Savio wrote:


You guys might not like this, but in my opinion, the economy is pretty dang independent of politics. The economy of the US is a behemoth and the government is a small part of it. Its true that economic growth can be stimulated by tax cuts (the GOP talking points), but it is ALSO true that it is stimulated by increased government spending (democrats talking points). I don't believe that the differences between the two are very significant.

Now, as far as things like this bailout (stabilizing some large institutions) I don't know much about that, that falls more under finance than economics.

I don't think that Presidents have profound effects on the economy. However, McCain does favor lower taxes on businesses and that seems like it would better allow our companies to compete in the world market.

McCain also favors limiting the scope of government involvement in the economy. I support that.

But MOST OF ALL, as far as economic reasons that I support McCain, is that more than any other politician in Washington, he has fought and continues to fight wasteful government spending.

I am disappointed with both President Bush and the Republican Congress for completely abandoning all pretenses to fiscal restraint and behaving like a bunch of democrats. It used to be that the GOP was all about fiscal responsibility and restraining government, but in the last 8 years, it seems that they just became another democratic party of big spenders.

McCain has been fighting this and refused pork spending his entire career. He has also committed (and only he has the clout to say this) to vetoing every bill that contains pork regardless of whether it was for democrats or republicans.

But I support McCain for many other reasons besides economic reasons. I do always vote pro-life, I own several guns and I don't want guns and ammo taxes increased 500% as Obama supports (this is true as verified by factcheck.org), and I do trust McCain's experience, knowledge and judgement more than Obama's on military and foreign affairs.

So there you have it.

On October 03 2008 09:59 Savio wrote:


Right now, there are 5 justices that feel they can "interpret" the constitution and that it is a living document. 4 are more originalist. John Paul Stevens is a liberal justice who is 88 years old. You cannot say that this is not important.

Appointing the next justice will almost surely be the most important thing the president does. And it is permanent!

Tax policy can always just be undone by the next president.

On October 03 2008 11:37 Savio wrote:


The change in deaths coincided with the surge and the change in strategy imposed by General Petraeus. So yes, policy makers and generals DO affect the number of deaths because they can contribute to success or failure.

On October 03 2008 12:06 wswordsmen wrote:

Debt=/= Deficit

The $20 you have in your wallet adds to the debt, it doesn't add to the deficit, I don't know much about it but it does look like you confused the 2. That said you are right pork is small relative to other factors in the deficit.

On October 03 2008 12:06 GeneralStan wrote:
The most notable Palin statement was where she mentioned that "Crazy dictators hate our freedom, our equal rights, our women's rights" (paraphrased until I get a transcript).

Its a ridiculous combination of deception and naivety. Either she really thinks that dictators really do hate our freedom and that is what compels them to act the way they do, revealing a childish grasp of foreign affairs, or she realizes that what is coming out of her mouth is bullshit, which is worse because it means she has no intention of honestly engaging the American public about foreign affairs, and we've seen how that's worked out in the last 8 years (especially since in addition to appropriating the ridiculous populous language of Bush, she is an ardent supporter of his doctrine, which isn't the way to get back into the world's good graces)

On October 03 2008 11:37 Savio wrote:


The change in deaths coincided with the surge and the change in strategy imposed by General Petraeus. So yes, policy makers and generals DO affect the number of deaths because they can contribute to success or failure.

On October 03 2008 12:20 useLess wrote:


well, just to inject a different point of view:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Satellite_images_show_ethnic_cleansing_source_0919.html

summary: the US surge wasnt necessarily or completely responsible for the reduce in Iraq violence