0
   

THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2008 03:46 pm
You're simply incorrect about that - Obama DOES control the DNC now, and McCain DOES control the RNC. Obama just up and moved the DNC to Chicago for the rest of the campaign.

The presidential candidates are in a very real sense the heads of their parties at this point. The idea that McCain is somehow not responsible for the ads produced and paid for by the RNC is a joke; of course he is.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2008 03:47 pm
On the lighter side:

With friends like theseĀ…LINK
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 12:35 pm
From Pennsylvia - comments mine.

Obama says he would cut taxes for middle class
Jun 14 11:51 AM US/Eastern
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WAYNE, Pa. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama told voters Saturday he would push an aggressive economic agenda as president: cutting taxes for the middle class, raising taxes on the wealthy, pouring money into "green energy" and requiring employers to set up retirement saving plans for their workers.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania, a key battleground in the fall campaign, Obama said he would take a much more hands-on approach than would Republican John McCain. He again criticized McCain's proposal for a temporary halt in the federal gasoline tax. It would "actually do real harm," Obama said, by reducing revenue for road and bridge construction even as oil companies make record profits.

I don't really care about a temporary gas tax relief measure, but I am never opposed to anybody who thinks taxpayers will spend their own money more productively than the government will spend it. Obama isn't taking into account the reduced government revenues from a tourist and travel industry depressed because of high gas taxes. McCain does.

Speaking to about 200 people in Wayne, a Philadelphia suburb, Obama made no new proposals but emphasized earlier ones in light of rising gas prices, inflation and job losses. They include a $1,000 tax cut for most working families; a new Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000; a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies; a $4,000 annual college tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service programs; and an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 a year.

What provision will be made I wonder to collect that $4000 credit for students who drop out? What will constitute a 'national or community service program'? Why not provide some strong incentives for universities to make higher education more affordable and increase their graduation rates so that more students would be able to finance their own education?

Obama said he could pay for his programs by eliminating the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy, winding down the Iraq war and spending more on alternative energy programs that eventually will save money.

Well at least we have moved from 'bringing the troops home immediately' to 'winding down the Iraq war' which makes Obama's plan for Iraq identical to everybody else's. Obama misses the boat, however, by elminating the Bush administration's tax cuts for the 'wealthy' because I believe history shows that we will see almost an immediate decrease in treasury revenues and economic growth.

He said employers should be required to set up retirement saving plans for workers even if they contribute no money to them. Workers would automatically be enrolled unless they choose to opt out, he said. That way, he said, "most people will save more."

The federal government should not be requiring private employers to do anything other than not violate the Constitution and file appropriate necessary paperwork. This is waaaaaay too much big brother for me.

He also vowed to spend $150 billion over 10 years to establish a "green energy sector." It would require greater fuel efficiency in cars and devote more money to solar, wind, and biodiesel energy.

Oh goody. We can look forward to even higher taxes, higher fuel costs, and higher food costs by not providing incentives and otherwise leaving all that to the private sector to accomplish. More big government.

Taking audience questions, Obama praised Thursday's Supreme Court decision to allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts. Enforcing habeas corpus rights, he said, is "the essence of who we are."

Even when Nazis' atrocities became known in the 1940s, he said, "we still gave them a day in court" at the Nuremberg trials. "That taught the entire world about who we are," he said.

McCain sharply criticized the court ruling, saying it would hamper the war on terrorism.

The Nazi war criminals were tried and convicted via military tribunal, not under any nation's Constitutional law or court system. John McCain who has refused to condone torture and has advocated closing Guatanamo still sees the very real problems and danger of giving enemy combatants the same rights and privileges as US Citizens. I think Obama is likely to appoint judges who will do just that. McCain won't.

Obama said McCain would be likely to appoint Supreme Court nominees who would allow states to outlaw abortion. "You're just one justice away from that," he said, alluding to the court's narrow ideological divisions.

Abortion nor any other issue like it should have ever been a federal issue in the first place. States or local communities should be able to excercize their 10th Amendment right to set the moral and ethical standards for their own people. I'm guessing a few states might outlaw most abortion, but I'm guessing most won't. Several might adopt Roe v Wade type legislation that would make it more difficult to casually use abortion as just one more form of birth control.

LINK
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 12:53 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The Nazi war criminals were tried and convicted via military tribunal, not under any nation's Constitutional law or court system. .


That is untrue.

The Nuremberg Trials' court was a specially installed war crimes tribunal , not a military tribunal (thus 'only' three military ranks as judges).
The Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals were a series of twelve U.S. military tribunals, though, with only civil judges (30) and civil procecutors (more than 100), all following the rules of the first trial.

Since the foundation of Germany in 1949, all Nazi war trials were held at German courts and according German law.



The Holocaust and Soviet War Crimes Trials (e.g. in in the cities of Briansk, Leningrad, Velikie Luki, Riga, Minsk, Kiev, and Nikolayev) were at military tribunals: there were no other in the USSR in those days.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 01:01 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The Nazi war criminals were tried and convicted via military tribunal, not under any nation's Constitutional law or court system. .


That is untrue.

The Nuremberg Trials' court was a specially installed war crimes tribunal , not a military tribunal (thus 'only' three military ranks as judges).
The Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals were a series of twelve U.S. military tribunals, though, with only civil judges (30) and civil procecutors (more than 100), all following the rules of the first trial.

Since the foundation of Germany in 1949, all Nazi war trials were held at German courts and according German law.



The Holocaust and Soviet War Crimes Trials (e.g. in in the cities of Briansk, Leningrad, Velikie Luki, Riga, Minsk, Kiev, and Nikolayev) were at military tribunals: there were no other in the USSR in those days.


Okay, I believe you are correct and I misspoke. In that case, however, you have German citizens who happened to be war criminals being tried under German law as would be appropriate for U.S. citizens who happened to be war criminals to be tried under U.S. law which could be military courts or civil courts as the situation warranted.

Should Germany find itself involved in another war, however, do you think captured enemy combatants and/or prisoners of war would be afforded the same rights as German citizens?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 01:22 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, I believe you are correct and I misspoke. In that case, however, you have German citizens who happened to be war criminals being tried under German law as would be appropriate for U.S. citizens who happened to be war criminals to be tried under U.S. law which could be military courts or civil courts as the situation warranted.


Those "war crminals" weren't only Germans - the trials were (and still are) at courts in various other countries under the relevant national laws.


Foxfyre wrote:
Should Germany find itself involved in another war, however, do you think captured enemy combatants and/or prisoners of war would be afforded the same rights as German citizens?


If we don't change our constitution until then: yes, according to the Geneva Convention.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 01:32 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, I believe you are correct and I misspoke. In that case, however, you have German citizens who happened to be war criminals being tried under German law as would be appropriate for U.S. citizens who happened to be war criminals to be tried under U.S. law which could be military courts or civil courts as the situation warranted.


Those "war crminals" weren't only Germans - the trials were (and still are) at courts in various other countries under the relevant national laws.


Foxfyre wrote:
Should Germany find itself involved in another war, however, do you think captured enemy combatants and/or prisoners of war would be afforded the same rights as German citizens?


If we don't change our constitution until then: yes.


Well I'll read up on it. But though German prisoners of war were treated very well here in the States, they were not afforded citizen protection or status during WWII and this was for very good reason. I think the high Court was wrong and McCain is right on this one.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 01:44 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

Well I'll read up on it. But though German prisoners of war were treated very well here in the States, they were not afforded citizen protection or status during WWII and this was for very good reason. I think the high Court was wrong and McCain is right on this one.


You hold McCain's private opinion higher than a ruling of the Supreme Court?

I can follow your thinking that German POW's didn't get citizen protection or status during WWII: you were in war with Germany in those days.

Are you in war with Germany or any other nation just now as well? (re Germans in Guantanamo or those citizens of other nations.)

I truely believe that the Nuremberg Trials showed us (here in Europe, especially here in Germany) that law and justice is a part of democracy, and that's what the Allied wanted to bring us.
One might question the validity of the court like Chief Justice Stone et. al., but under those circumstances and those times it wasn't that bad all, I think.

But we live now 60 years later, and the USA didn't declare war to those nations, whose citizens ...

Never mind.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 01:45 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, I believe you are correct and I misspoke. In that case, however, you have German citizens who happened to be war criminals being tried under German law as would be appropriate for U.S. citizens who happened to be war criminals to be tried under U.S. law which could be military courts or civil courts as the situation warranted.


Those "war crminals" weren't only Germans - the trials were (and still are) at courts in various other countries under the relevant national laws.


Foxfyre wrote:
Should Germany find itself involved in another war, however, do you think captured enemy combatants and/or prisoners of war would be afforded the same rights as German citizens?


If we don't change our constitution until then: yes.


Well I'll read up on it. But though German prisoners of war were treated very well here in the States, they were not afforded citizen protection or status during WWII and this was for very good reason. I think the high Court was wrong and McCain is right on this one.



No, they didn't have citizen status. They were, however, protected as prisoners of war.

The problem with the people detained in Guantanamo is that they had neither.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2008 05:03 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Well I'll read up on it. But though German prisoners of war were treated very well here in the States, they were not afforded citizen protection or status during WWII and this was for very good reason. I think the high Court was wrong and McCain is right on this one.


You hold McCain's private opinion higher than a ruling of the Supreme Court?

I can follow your thinking that German POW's didn't get citizen protection or status during WWII: you were in war with Germany in those days.

Are you in war with Germany or any other nation just now as well? (re Germans in Guantanamo or those citizens of other nations.)

I truely believe that the Nuremberg Trials showed us (here in Europe, especially here in Germany) that law and justice is a part of democracy, and that's what the Allied wanted to bring us.
One might question the validity of the court like Chief Justice Stone et. al., but under those circumstances and those times it wasn't that bad all, I think.

But we live now 60 years later, and the USA didn't declare war to those nations, whose citizens ...

Never mind.


I don't see as infallible any person, elected and/or appointed or not, and that includes justices of the Supreme Court. It was the Supreme Court that gave us just wonderful abominations such as Dred Scott vs Sandford, Pace vs Alabama, Korematsu vs United States among many other really bad decisions--the list is a long looooong one of decisions that have been made either hastily or outside the clear spirit of the Constitution. If Supreme Court justices are to be considered sacrosanct, why is it that there are so many split decisions? You would think there would be more unanimous decisions if they all think alike or if a Supreme Court justice can be expected to decide correctly all or most of the time.

Are there Germans being held at Guatanamo? I was under the impression that other than our own military that have broken whatever laws requiring a period of incarceration, those being held at Guatanamo are enemy combatants captured other than on American soil.

A good argument opposite of the recent SCOTUS decision about that can be found HERE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 01:41 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Are there Germans being held at Guatanamo?


Murat Kurnaz was the most famous.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 09:12 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Are there Germans being held at Guatanamo?


Murat Kurnaz was the most famous.


But I thought he was not yet a German citizen at the time he was arrested. I'm pretty sure he was not born German.....I'm thinking he is a native Turk? As I recall, once you get past the sensationalist and absurd claims made by Kurnaz, Germany had no interest in seeking his release as he was considered a security risk by your own government at the time he was arrested.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 09:47 am
Well, I might have misspoken.

However, since those days (= after two parliamentary investigation committees) our minister for foreign affairs got a new middle name: Frank-Walter Guantanamo Steinmeier.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 11:38 pm
Re: THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008
Foxfyre wrote:
In the 2008 General Election who are you the most for? Or the least against? Or the most against?


myself, the driving force of a representative democracy is to vote for that candidate that most aligns with that which the voter wants the government office under election to implement.

obama is not a liberal, no matter how the right wing weirdos smear the guy, ( see kristol and delay calling him a marxist) especially with his economic advisors as disciples of robert rubin, sect of treasury under clinton, a true wall streeter, not an economic populist or main streeter as one would expect from obama's populist rhetoric would predict.

mccain has no grasp of economics so what we would likely get is the same bad craziness as under bush, cut taxes substantially on those making $277,000 or more (that top 1%), while decreasing government programs that the remaining 99% use to make life more livable.

mccain would put onto the federal courts judges who raise property rights above civil rights, obama would likely not, but to think that the guy is a marxist has no supportable evidence because i think that most posters who hate the guy haven't read his books where he talks like a moderate republican who worships the "free market" as a panacea for society ills

mccain is simply too damned old at 72, especially after being tortured for years as a young man in north viet nam , incendiary, and frankly too stupid to run the country. he still can't use a personal computer and that means the potential president of the united states can't even do what most ten year olds in the country know how to do, or even the right wing whack jobs who infect this site like the ebola virus.

the guy who is going to win is the one whom the majority of the people believe most likely will throw the money changers out of the temple.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2008 11:53 am
Kuvacz writes
Quote:
the guy who is going to win is the one whom the majority of the people believe most likely will throw the money changers out of the temple.



Well that obviously won't be Obama in fact. He is shifting gears and back pedaling or ignoring some of his more magnanimous prior statements intended to make him look like a really wonderful guy who is above the pettiness and business-as-usual of your run of the mill politician. And chasing out the money changers seems to be off the table so far as his personal interests are concerned too.

Whether the majority of the people are too dumb or too much in denial to see this remains to be seen. What is is not always what people choose to believe.

Obama opts out of public campaign finance system LINK
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2008 11:54 am
Obama saves the American taxpayers over 80 million dollars, and supposed fiscal Conservatives complain about it?

The hypocrisy!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2008 11:57 am
No, he won't be saving the tax payers anything. He is reneging on a verbal pledge he made however which allows him to accept monies he otherwise would not be taking from people who will not be providing that money for totally altruistic reasons.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2008 12:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
No, he won't be saving the tax payers anything. He is reneging on a verbal pledge he made however which allows him to accept monies he otherwise would not be taking from people who will not be providing that money for totally altruistic reasons.


It is a fact that he will not be taking that 80 million or so from taxpayers, actually.

He pledged to work with McSame to come to an agreement on public financing, including working to control outside groups which could be used to get around the restrictions. McSame indicated that he had no desire to control outside groups (who are going to do his dirty work for him). As he was uninterested in the deal, Obama wasn't either.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2008 12:06 pm
I'm not even going to ask for anything to support that Cyclop since you will no doubt state it as your opinion and therefore you don't need to support it.

But moving on, I can understand Obama wanting to control the more outrageous and untrue smears some are putting out there related to him, but I think he new game plan to carefully protect and shape the image he projects to the public may backfire on him. I certainly hope it does because it only reinforces the impression of people like me that believe the public image he seeks to project is not anything like the person we are likely to get as President if he wins in November.

Quote:
. . .McCain's campaign has been faulted for being too lax in protecting his image, facing specific criticism for his prime-time speech before a relatively small crowd and an odd green backdrop the night Obama claimed his party's nomination. Yet while McCain's aides have had their share of skirmishes with the press, they still enjoy a reputation for giving reporters traveling with him an unusual amount of access.

Strategists for Obama, the country's first black nominee, have made it clear that they believe they need to take extra steps to control his image and protect against attack. But such efforts at times appear to conflict with the candidate's stated desire to be unusually transparent and open, and they have already occasionally put him at loggerheads with news organizations pushing for greater access to him now that he is the presumptive nominee.

In spirited discussions with reporters barred from Monday's meeting with African-American civic leaders, aides said that no cameras were allowed because the participants wanted the meeting to be private, even though it was announced on the daily hotel roster of events. Later, other aides said the lighting was not properly set up for television quality.

When Obama met with religious leaders last week, his campaign kept out photographers and reporters and refused to share a full list of participants.

COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE

This is further reinforced by his not accepting McCain's suggestion for a number of town hall meetings in which people could actually test a candidate's knowledge and get explanations for the stuff the candidates say they want to do. Obama's handlers know that every time he works without a script, he generally makes several errors that illustrate how incompetent he probably is in many areas, and how much smoke he has actually been blowing.

The question to be answered is: Do we want a President who is 'handled' by people to avoid showing what he doesn't know or revealing who he actually is? Or do we want a President who actually knows something about what he is talking about and isn't afraid to show that he is exactly the person he claims to be?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2008 12:16 pm
Well, the 'ten town hall meetings' proposed by McCain are roughly similar to the 'weekly debates' proposed by Hillary: something the trailing candidate inevitably does to try and weaken the leading one, and then denounces the other candidate as 'afraid' when they don't buy into the idiocy. Nice try, but it just reinforces my earlier contention: McCain is the new Hillary of this race, with the same complaints and the same problems.

As for the public financing deal,

Quote:
"In the past couple of weeks, our campaign counsels met and it was immediately clear that McCain's campaign had no interest in the possibility of an agreement," Burton said. "When asked about the RNC's months of raising and spending for the general election, McCain's campaign could only offer its expectation that the Obama campaign would probably, sooner or later, catch up. And shortly thereafter, Senator McCain signaled to the 527s that they were free to run wild, without objection."


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_aide_blames_McCain_on_publicfinancing.html

McCain didn't want to make a deal including limiting attack groups on the outside, so there was no deal made. Simple as that. Obama never promised to take public financing for his campaign, and certainly never promised to do so unconditionally.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/07/2025 at 01:00:43