McCain Clinton 08

[GabonX]

How would the chips fall if this unlikely campaign were to occur?

It would shave the conservative base but no Republican would vote for Obama and it would bring a signifigant proportion of the Democrat vote to McCaine.

I don't think it's going to happen but if it did I don't think Obama would have a chance...

[reminisco]

well, of course Obama wouldn't have a chance. if it's a McCain Clinton election, Obama won't have been nominated, and i doubt he'd run as an independent.

or, do you mean McCain and Hillary on the same ticket??

that'll never happen. Clinton is a fair weather fan with everything in her life, but has never changed parties. she's knows what side her bread is buttered on.

[btownmeggy]

The Constitutionalists would destroy them. Obama would easily win.

[tzor]

For the love of all that is good and holy. NO!

I have a fervant prayer of whom he should pick. In fact I'll sing it for you.

My eyes do wish the comming
of the VP JC Watts,
Both Clinton and Obamma
are all tied up all in knots!
'Cause no matter what your color
All that liberal nonsene rots
So it's a CFL Quarterback FTW!

[Snorri1234]

I think it would be awesome because everybody would realize democrats and republicans are basically the same!

[muy_thaiguy]

I think it would be awesome because everybody would realize democrats and republicans are basically the same!

No. Just no.

[btownmeggy]

I think it would be awesome because everybody would realize democrats and republicans are basically the same!

I was thinking about this. It's largely true. McCain and H. Clinton are a good example of the proximity.

[reminisco]

#-o For the love of all that is good and holy. NO!

I have a fervant prayer of whom he should pick. In fact I'll sing it for you.

My eyes do wish the comming
of the VP JC Watts,
Both Clinton and Obamma
are all tied up all in knots!
'Cause no matter what your color
All that liberal nonsene rots
So it's a CFL Quarterback FTW!

that was awesome. i couldn't read it without singing it in my head. great post.

[Snorri1234]

I think it would be awesome because everybody would realize democrats and republicans are basically the same!

No. Just no.

I am talking ofcourse about candidates, not the ideals of the parties. You can't deny that politics in the US is pretty much a different face for the same policies largely.

[Napoleon Ier]

I think it would be awesome because everybody would realize democrats and republicans are basically the same!

No. Just no.

I am talking ofcourse about candidates, not the ideals of the parties. You can't deny that politics in the US is pretty much a different face for the same policies largely.

I wish I could agree.

But when I hear that Obama lunatic say to the Washington Post, no less, that he's going to pull out of Iraw "whilst stabilizing the region", and that trade restrictions will revitalize American industry, I actually believe he thinks that...

[0ojakeo0]

GO OBAMA!

[Napoleon Ier]

GO OBAMA!

Expunge masohistic white liberal guilt about "racialist prejudices !!!1" vs. Save global economy from collapse....

Barack, or McCain...hmmm...tough 'un for you yanks innit?

[GabonX]

GO OBAMA!

Expunge masohistic white liberal guilt about "racialist prejudices !!!1" vs. Save global economy from collapse....

Barack, or McCain...hmmm...tough 'un for you yanks innit?

See, not all foreigners hate McCain...

I have a free mind and my family didn't own slaves. Regardless I wouldn't have any personal guilt over something that happened over a hundred years before I was born even if they did.

[bradleybadly]

#-o For the love of all that is good and holy. NO!

I have a fervant prayer of whom he should pick. In fact I'll sing it for you.

My eyes do wish the comming
of the VP JC Watts,
Both Clinton and Obamma
are all tied up all in knots!
'Cause no matter what your color
All that liberal nonsene rots
So it's a CFL Quarterback FTW!

Nicely done!

I think it would be awesome because everybody would realize democrats and republicans are basically the same!

Look I'm not trying to pick one my fights with you again, Snorri, but that's a little ridiculous. Democrats do not think that tax cuts stimulate the economy. They think that rich people horde the money so that poor people will either stay poor or become more poor and they think that's not fair. That's a very big difference.

[Snorri1234]

I think it would be awesome because everybody would realize democrats and republicans are basically the same!

Look I'm not trying to pick one my fights with you again, Snorri, but that's a little ridiculous. Democrats do not think that tax cuts stimulate the economy. They think that rich people horde the money so that poor people will either stay poor or become more poor and they think that's not fair. That's a very big difference.

And this is the main problem. You think something as trivial as tax-cuts is important. You should know that "tax cuts" are there so the rich friends of the president have nothing to worry about. Try to differentiate between what politicians say and what they actually do.

Both the republican and democratic candidates are sponsored by big oil companies, big business, special interest groups and all that. All the big things like education, health care, wages, pollution are ignored in favour of talking about the Iraq war and calling the other party socialist/right wing nutjobs. The worst thing is that people actually honestly believe that what the politicians talk about is important. Endless debate about teaching creationism in schools while a large part of the public schools is dirt poor. Why is there more outrage over Bill Clinton sleeping with a chick than over the appalling state of a lot of things?

[Napoleon Ier]

I think it would be awesome because everybody would realize democrats and republicans are basically the same!

Look I'm not trying to pick one my fights with you again, Snorri, but that's a little ridiculous. Democrats do not think that tax cuts stimulate the economy. They think that rich people horde the money so that poor people will either stay poor or become more poor and they think that's not fair. That's a very big difference.

And this is the main problem. You think something as trivial as tax-cuts is important. You should know that "tax cuts" are there so the rich friends of the president have nothing to worry about. Try to differentiate between what politicians say and what they actually do.

Both the republican and democratic candidates are sponsored by big oil companies, big business, special interest groups and all that. All the big things like education, health care, wages, pollution are ignored in favour of talking about the Iraq war and calling the other party socialist/right wing nutjobs. The worst thing is that people actually honestly believe that what the politicians talk about is important. Endless debate about teaching creationism in schools while a large part of the public schools is dirt poor. Why is there more outrage over Bill Clinton sleeping with a chick than over the appalling state of a lot of things?

Sancta Maria Mater Dei...taxes are "trivial"? What, like the extra $800.000.000.000 Obama's gonna levy per annum according to the NTU?

So tell me snorri, how is that trivial? How is the global economy collapsing as investor confidence is destroyed by Obama's non-existant understanding of monetary policy, ridiculous proposals to double capital gains tax, & the Middle East plunging into anarchic chaos as the US pulls out, trivial?

[greenoaks]

On a prior trip to america our married prime minister visited a titty bar. he reckons he was so plastered he can't remember what happened there. when that story leaked out while campaigning to become the PM his approval rating shot up. we aussies know what is important.

[Snorri1234]

Sancta Maria Mater Dei...taxes are "trivial"? What, like the extra $800.000.000.000 Obama's gonna levy per annum according to the NTU?

Did I say taxes are trivial?

I said "tax cuts" are trivial, because anyone knows tax cuts according to the political elite is tax cuts for their rich friends. If you believe your taxes will become less when voting republican you're simply deluded, or you're rich already.

The NTU is all hung up about the top 50% paying 96% of the taxes, but they totally ignore the fact that those top 50% also earn almost all of the money. The top 1% still only pays about 35% income-tax, far less than in any european country. And 35% is the highest percentile you can actually pay.

Let's look at the numbers:
1992......1993 - 2000..2001....2002.....2003 - 2008
15% .........15%........15%.....10%.........10%
.....................................15%.........15%
28%.........28%.........27.5%...27%.........25%
31%.........31%........30.5% ....30%.........28%
..............36%........35.5%.....35%.........33%
..............39.6%......39.1%.....38.6%......35%

The bottom 50% (earning less than 30,000 a year) hasn't been paying any less taxes since '92, unless they earned less than 7,000 a year or so. (Which is way low.)

See those tax cuts George W Bush promised? See who they have affected? The rich with a special cut for the super-rich (1%) which shaved 3,6 percentile of it.

(Also, I wanna know where you got the 800 billion number about Obama, seeing as NTU claims it's only 300 billion.)

[bradleybadly]

And this is the main problem. You think something as trivial as tax-cuts is important.

And this is why I hate liberal thinking with a passion. They think that something as important as people retaining more of the money that THEY EARNED is trivial. Seriously, how old are you and how long have you been providing for a family? Anyone whose done it for awhile knows how important that is.

You should know that "tax cuts" are there so the rich friends of the president have nothing to worry about.

Oh shit! Are we back to this now?

Try to differentiate between what politicians say and what they actually do.

Sure thing Snores. Bill Clinton promised tax cuts many times when he ran for president and then never did it. Make sure you don't vote for the Clintons - they talk shit but they don't produce.

Both the republican and democratic candidates are sponsored by big oil companies, big business, special interest groups and all that.

hell man, you just put out a broad sweeping generalization out there. No facts at all to back it up. Then when I start threads about stuff you get upset that I generalize. You need to practice what you preach.

All the big things like education, health care, wages, pollution are ignored in favour of talking about the Iraq war and calling the other party socialist/right wing nutjobs.

WTF!! Both sides are talking about it and they have VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS on them. Democrats want to spend more on education despite the fact that they aren't doing a good job on educating people with anything more than liberalism. Republicans want more accountability before they receive money for it. Democrats want to force government-run health care on people and Republicans don't. Democrats want to raise the minimum wage and Republicans don't. I have yet to see either party come out in support of pollution.

Why wouldn't politicians talk about the Iraq War. It's important!! Hey, I tried to cut down on starting posts about liberals and socialists by the way. I'm now just gonna write my opinions and see if people are serious about addressing them. If not, I'll go back to irritating the left-wing.

The worst thing is that people actually honestly believe that what the politicians talk about is important.

It is important. How else are we supposed to know how they think about the issues?

Endless debate about teaching creationism in schools while a large part of the public schools is dirt poor.

I personally think creationism is a crock of shit. However there are people out there who believe in it. I've got no problem with it being discussed in a classroom because one day my daughter will have to interact with those people and she should at least have a basic understanding of what they believe so she can deal with them. Nobody is going to die from learning about creationism. They probably think the same thing about us. Public schools are not dirt poor they are mismanaged. Then those same people cry about how they need more money.

Why is there more outrage over Bill Clinton sleeping with a chick than over the appalling state of a lot of things?

Because he used the powers of the presidency to try to cover it up and intimidate anyone who would expose him. That's illegal.

[Napoleon Ier]

Sancta Maria Mater Dei...taxes are "trivial"? What, like the extra $800.000.000.000 Obama's gonna levy per annum according to the NTU?

Did I say taxes are trivial?

I said "tax cuts" are trivial, because anyone knows tax cuts according to the political elite is tax cuts for their rich friends. If you believe your taxes will become less when voting republican you're simply deluded, or you're rich already.

The NTU is all hung up about the top 50% paying 96% of the taxes, but they totally ignore the fact that those top 50% also earn almost all of the money. The top 1% still only pays about 35% income-tax, far less than in any european country. And 35% is the highest percentile you can actually pay.

Let's look at the numbers:
1992......1993 - 2000..2001....2002.....2003 - 2008
15% .........15%........15%.....10%.........10%
.....................................15%.........15%
28%.........28%.........27.5%...27%.........25%
31%.........31%........30.5% ....30%.........28%
..............36%........35.5%.....35%.........33%
..............39.6%......39.1%.....38.6%......35%

The bottom 50% (earning less than 30,000 a year) hasn't been paying any less taxes since '92, unless they earned less than 7,000 a year or so. (Which is way low.)

See those tax cuts George W Bush promised? See who they have affected? The rich with a special cut for the super-rich (1%) which shaved 3,6 percentile of it.

(Also, I wanna know where you got the 800 billion number about Obama, seeing as NTU claims it's only 300 billion.)

The NTU estimates $300 billion at the Federal Level, though the Cato Institute quoted another analysis which estimated the total at $800 billion, which, I suppose if you include extra State tax he'll want to push for and estimated "cost unknown" programs and so forth, you can easily see how that's going to pile up very much higher.

Here's the article of you're interested:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9234

Taxes and spending: There is no doubt an Obama presidency would represent a return to traditional tax-and-spend liberalism. According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has so far proposed at least $287 billion per year in new government spending. And that was before he unveiled his $150 billion "green energy plan" last week. Nor does that include the spending proposals he has supported in the Senate but not discussed on the campaign trail. For example, Obama is co-sponsor of a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion over the next five years to fight global poverty. CNBC economic analyst Larry Kudlow estimates that, when all is said and done, Obama's new spending plans will cost us more than $800 billion per year.

Either way, it's a huge sum, and its going to spent by the most backward, quixotic, simpleton ever to run for the office of President. This, very possibly on the eve of a US led global recession of significant magnitude.

Now I know you're all caught up in noble ideas of social justice and uniting the proletariat and so forth, but a novel idea some neo-classical economists (those friends of the evil capitalist kulak types, by the way) are suggesting is that cutting taxes actually stimulates economic growth by encouraging investment and consumption.

[Napoleon Ier]

Why is there more outrage over Bill Clinton sleeping with a chick than over the appalling state of a lot of things?

Because he used the powers of the presidency to try to cover it up and intimidate anyone who would expose him. That's illegal.

"A President who lies to the American people should be forced to resign."

--Bill Clinton, 1993

[Snorri1234]

And this is why I hate liberal thinking with a passion. They think that something as important as people retaining more of the money that THEY EARNED is trivial. Seriously, how old are you and how long have you been providing for a family? Anyone whose done it for awhile knows how important that is.

Noone likes to pay taxes, the problem first and foremost is how the money is spent, not on how much you pay. Anyway, complaining about a maximum of 35% taxes is ridiculous, complaining about the 52% we have would be more understandable.

And yes, I think there are way more important things than the government taking your money. Like the bureaucracy and corruption that ensures your money is spent on things like a second vacation home, instead of schools and public buildings.

Sure thing Snores. Bill Clinton promised tax cuts many times when he ran for president and then never did it. Make sure you don't vote for the Clintons - they talk shit but they don't produce.

You know who also promised tax cuts? Bush.

That's my point. They don't actually deliver, all the politicians promise but don't deliver.

Both the republican and democratic candidates are sponsored by big oil companies, big business, special interest groups and all that.

hell man, you just put out a broad sweeping generalization out there. No facts at all to back it up. Then when I start threads about stuff you get upset that I generalize. You need to practice what you preach.

You're saying they don't receive donations from those groups?

Public schools are not dirt poor they are mismanaged.

Obviously, but I haven't heard any candidate actually explain how to fix that. The problem I see is that it's mainly the candidates that talk in vague language about "accountability" without explaining what they mean by that.
I understand that the basic philosophy underneath the parties is very different, but the actual politicians are very much alike. I mean, McCain may be the republican candidate but he is also talking about spending money on a lot of issues. If you read the issue-pages on the candidates' homepage, you will see they often say the same things. Maybe not exactly the same, but closer than people are led to believe when you're looking at arguments between republicans and democrats.

Take for example the thread bebud just started with calling democrats "socialists" and republicans "capitalists". That's the most ridiculous thing you can say. Both parties are very much capitalist, especially when compared to the rest of the western world.
Making the comparison there creates a false distinction, as people think the two parties are inconsolable.

[Snorri1234]

Now I know you're all caught up in noble ideas of social justice and uniting the proletariat and so forth, but a novel idea some neo-classical economists (those friends of the evil capitalist kulak types, by the way) are suggesting is that cutting taxes actually stimulates economic growth by encouraging investment and consumption.

Oh I'm not a fan of taxing people excessively, but to act like taxes are the most evil invention ever really just irks me. Especially when cutting taxes is used as an excuse to attract the poorer people.

I should note that cutting taxes won't be done unless the bureaucracy is also reformed, something I can't imagine happening soon.

[GabonX]

I personally think creationism is a crock of shit. However there are people out there who believe in it. I've got no problem with it being discussed in a classroom because one day my daughter will have to interact with those people and she should at least have a basic understanding of what they believe so she can deal with them. Nobody is going to die from learning about creationism. They probably think the same thing about us. Public schools are not dirt poor they are mismanaged. Then those same people cry about how they need more money.

I think this might be the most insightful thing anyone has said in this thread, I agree with you completely.

Completely off topic but still very insightful

[Snorri1234]

I personally think creationism is a crock of shit. However there are people out there who believe in it. I've got no problem with it being discussed in a classroom because one day my daughter will have to interact with those people and she should at least have a basic understanding of what they believe so she can deal with them. Nobody is going to die from learning about creationism. They probably think the same thing about us. Public schools are not dirt poor they are mismanaged. Then those same people cry about how they need more money.

I think this might be the most insightful thing anyone has said in this thread, I agree with you completely.

Completely off topic but still very insightful

Ofcourse, teaching kids creationism in science-class and acting like it's as valid as evolution might not be the best thing to do. And considering that is the whole focus of the debate...