THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008

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?

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

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?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

Old politics : trailing candidate invites leader to debates or town hall meetings to hopefully weaken his position.

Old politics : leading candidate recognizes that might very well be true and rebuffs efforts of trailing candidate.

New politics : leading candidate is so sure of his positions and strength that he says "Okay let's have the debates..... the more people who see and hear me the better. I fear nothing and in fact welcome the opportunity"


All I see here is old politics, even from the side claiming to be the ushers of new politics. Okay then.

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

NEW UPDATE: Obama's campaign has now provided an undated copy of an amended 2006 tax return that shows he and his wife did contribute to the federal matching program that year. But it remains unclear when the amendment was made and why that version was not provided to reporters when the senator's tax records were posted on the campaign's Web site several weeks ago.

INDIANA
POLIS - Sen. Barack Obama said today that he was not trying to send a signal earlier this week during a meeting with donors in Washington that he might back away from a pledge he made last year to accept public financing if the Republican nominee does the same.

McCain is grandstanding on public financing when he is, as we speak, breaking the law by continuing to spend unlimited primary campaign money after opting in to public financing for the primary phase of the campaign.

mccain would put onto the federal courts judges who raise property rights above civil rights

Quote:

And whats the problem with that?

Your rights end at my property line.

kuvasz wrote:

mccain would put onto the federal courts judges who raise property rights above civil rights

Quote:

And whats the problem with that?

Your rights end at my property line.

In fact, they do not. Civil rights are inherent.

Cycloptichorn

mysteryman wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

mccain would put onto the federal courts judges who raise property rights above civil rights

Quote:

And whats the problem with that?

Your rights end at my property line.

In fact, they do not. Civil rights are inherent.

Cycloptichorn

Actually, they do.
If I dont like what you say, I can throw you off my property and you cant do anything about it.
So your right to free speech is limited.

If you want to include food and water as a "civil right", you dont have the right to any of the food or water on my property without my permission.

Go ahead, name some other "civil rights" that you think can overrule my property rights?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

mccain would put onto the federal courts judges who raise property rights above civil rights

Quote:

And whats the problem with that?

Your rights end at my property line.

In fact, they do not. Civil rights are inherent.

Cycloptichorn

Actually, they do.
If I dont like what you say, I can throw you off my property and you cant do anything about it.
So your right to free speech is limited.

If you want to include food and water as a "civil right", you dont have the right to any of the food or water on my property without my permission.

Go ahead, name some other "civil rights" that you think can overrule my property rights?

Rights are inherent, not situational. You do not lose an inherent right when you change your location.

As a landowner, you have the right to eject me from your property; but you cannot curtail one's natural rights.

I never once said that civil rights 'over-ruled' your property rights; they are not in conflict, as they deal with two separate issues.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

mccain would put onto the federal courts judges who raise property rights above civil rights

Quote:

And whats the problem with that?

Your rights end at my property line.

In fact, they do not. Civil rights are inherent.

Cycloptichorn

Actually, they do.
If I dont like what you say, I can throw you off my property and you cant do anything about it.
So your right to free speech is limited.

If you want to include food and water as a "civil right", you dont have the right to any of the food or water on my property without my permission.

Go ahead, name some other "civil rights" that you think can overrule my property rights?[/[/color]b]

What can I say? You are a bloody polymath of wrongness, on par with Cliff Clavin.

Your response to my observation of "judges raising property right above civil rights" equates it with saying civil rights trump (or "overrule") property rights. So your response is just refracted insanity, because by the logical extension of your position, you could own slaves IF you kept them on your land because you don't have to abide by the 13th Amendment there. Us Americans fought a civil war to end that constitutional philosophy; perhaps you heard of it?

If you understand the English language as you say you do, you would recognize that decrying the elevation of one value above another in the judiciary branch of government is not the same as advocating the elevation of the lower value to the superior position.

But come to think of it, you really do look and act like Cliff Clavin.

If you can show that McCain has broken the law, then yes I'll have a problem with that. You're going to have to come up with something other than your own unique opinion or an obscure anti-Mccain website to support that however.

I see a response to a request and no action taken. Where do you see that he has broken any law? Be specific. I think McCain was acting in good faith re a mutual agreement with Obama that they would both take federal funding. When Obama reneged on that pledge, McCain had already gone forward with that mutual plan. He is now seeking to withdraw so that Obama won't have a hugely unfair advantage in ability to raise and use campaign funds.

If Obama did this intentionally to trap McCain into a grossly unfair arrangement, then we're going to have to add a huge sleaze factor to Obama don't you think?

Okay even if we are only dealing with the primary election, where is there any breaking of the law? Seems to me that he is making a straightforward request and received a straightforward response. I see nothing in the letter to suggest that he is accused of breaking any law.