End of the McCain age "issue"

[top gun]

Libsmasher;39190]Bush isn't running for president - nobody told you?

You are correct... John McBush is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRV8Q9IBDxk

The only tax cuts that COULD be made are for the "wealthy" - people who make over $100K pay almost all the taxes.

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

And your "$12 BILLION" is still just fiction.

Studies: Iraq war will cost $12 billion a month
Economists project a much higher ‘burn rate’ than government estimates

The Iraq factor in 2008

5 YEARS IN IRAQ
Sun., March. 9, 2008

The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show.

In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

Beyond 2008, working with "best-case" and "realistic-moderate" scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.

BS - the usual fiction from your overworked bot-brain. Drilling is prohibited in hundreds of places in the US, including off the california coast, where there are known oil deposits, and almost everywhere in alaska.

Usual smear from a fear monger. I never said drilling was allowed everywhere. And it absolutely shouldn't be allowed everywhere. I think it's reasonable to expand it some though... and think that will probably happen.

HA HA HA HA!!! Obama would collapse like a cheap card table in afghanistan and everywhere else - the Taliban is probably preparing a take over right now. Bush should at least put in place, as an Obama victory contingency, and publicly announce, evacuation plans for afghan and iraqi allies, to avoid a repeat of the post vietnam war massacres when we cut and ran from there.

President Obama will be in good company.

Poll of troops in Iraq sees 72% support for withdrawal within a year
By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes

WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.

BLAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH HA HA HA HEEE HEE HEEEEEEEE!!

Most coherent thing you've said...

 

[Vietvet]

His being "around forever" means he has depth of experience, as opposed to Obama the intern who has only his "change" mantra.

Yeah, and THE dick, Cheney, and his buddy Ronald Dumsfeld, also had a "depth of experience", didn't they? A hell of a lot of good THAT did us. Thank ya very much, Bushco..And YOU want more?

Okay...

 

[top gun]

golf claps for you....I guess you must not recall that I am not a Obama or McCain Supporter...and have said that McCain's Experience is one thing that I like about him, while Obama's lack of it is something I don't like that much. That said Bush W was not exactly a Foreign Policy expert coming in. Then Again, look how poorly that worked out.

But for both of the reasons sited for both, its a reason why the VP is very important to me this year. I would love to see Biden, or Chuck Hagel as VPs....even better, Biden as McCain's, and Hagel as Obama's...just to make it interesting. But I know Biden will not be with McCain, he has said so, and his view of McCain's Iraq Policy is to far apart.


Better yet Biden/Hagel for the Independence party in 08

Insightful comments pocket.

I've said for quite a while that Obama should pick a running mate with serious foreign policy and/or military cred. And actually Joe Biden was one of my more favorite Presidential candidates going in.

You know how the whole strategic "what extra state can he bring in" plays in picking a running mate and I don't know that Biden as good as he is brings anything extra in as far as states go. But I like him and foreign policy is his forte!

Others I see as good considerations are... Senator Jim Webb... General Wesley Clark... former Senator San Nunn (Currently the co-chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative), a charitable organization working to reduce the global threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, Nunn served for twenty-four years as a United States Senator from Georgia (1972 until 1997) as a member of the Democratic Party. He has political experience and strong credentials on national defense... and he's from the south.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;39195]As already pointed out, Bush is not running again.

A turd blossom by any other name is still a turd blossom. John McBush is now 100% Bushy. I'll grant you he didn't used to be. But he decided it was more important to get the neo-con backing he needed and Flip Flop all over the place than be consistent. (note: Please don't ask be to submit all the things he's went completely 180 on. I've already done that several times and it's wearing out my mouse.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRV8Q9IBDxk

Clearly you have no concept of how the tax cuts worked outside the bogus lies you hear on the news.

Well I do listen to the News... that's why they call it The News. But it's not a big secret Bush's economic policies have not been fair and his skyrocketing of the debt... much of it borrowed from Communist China is a long term economy killer. Granted it takes awhile... interestingly about 2 terms. It's exactly what happened to Bush's father when the massive Reagan deficit spending crashed in on him. And that helped put him one term & out... it was that bad.

I have a problem with this.. I do not get up and go to work to pay the bills for someone who does not.

Well by the grace of God it most certainly could be you. Heartless analogies aside there are good reasons for some safety nets in society. Why care about Workers Compensation... I'm not hurt (yet). Why have Unemployment Insureance... my wife & kids & I aren't living on the streets before I can find another job (yet).

Believe me... and I've seen this FIRST HAND from big talking "no public benefits people". They whine for their benefits when their life hits a rough patch much... MUCH louder than the guy that cares about others all along.

There are many areas that we refuse to drill in that have known oil pockets, if we are so concerned about the price of oil, why not go get them? And we have not built a new refinary in this country since the 1970's.

There is a little more to drilling oil than just... there's some oil there. The fact is I see us doing both some extra drilling (and I believe they are in the planning stages to enlarging at least one refinery) along with a big push for improved gas mileage and alternative fuels & technology. The future is not going to be nearly as oil based as it is today... that's just a fact.

I'd compare it to coal burning locomotives. Necessity is the mother of invention and a combination of things, pollution... oil prices... new & better technology is just at the beginning of ushering in many new things in the power and fuel industries.

So let me get this straight, McCain gets blasted for saying he would not mind if soldiers stay in Iraq for 100 years (as long as they are not dying) to maintain peace and protect American interests and he gets blasted as a war monger.

No John McCain is just a war monger period. The Iraq comment just shows he's also stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lcRaMeb2qM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67ANtTZpCmE

Obama says he will leave some soldiers in the area and he is somehow some foreign policy genius?

I think it's pretty clear we don't need a genius. We just need someone who isn't a frickin' idiot with a big chip on their shoulder.

Troops in Afganistan... absolutely. Bin Laden started the real (not made up by Bush) 9-11 scenario. We have every right to kick a$$ on that front.

Troops in Kuwait... If they want us there seems like a good location.

Turkey... same scenario and on...

Being unpaid World Police in some deluded Nation Building scheme refereeing a Civil War that will go on and on just like the Israeli & Palestinian conflict. Nope... In fact it was about the stupidest thing in the world to go in the first place.

To quote the first President Bush... Not gonna do it. No exit strategy there.

 

[Libsmasher]

ways mccain has changed in the last several years to fall more in line with the bush administration:

in 2000, mccain ran as a moderate who would not seek to overturn roe vs. wade. mccain now supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother.

Uh, when you make ALL those exceptions, you are in agreement with a HUGE minority of the american people, not just the Bush administration.

in 2001, mccain claimed he "could not support" the bush tax cuts because they benefited wealthier individuals disproportionately. now he wants to make them permanent.

Provide a citation from a credible source for both claims.

mccain called jerry falwell and his ilk "agents of intolerance" in 2002. he has since reversed his course on falwell and actively sought endorsements from rod parsely and john hagee, among other intolerant, bigoted, pig evangelical bobbleheads.

This is manifestly false - John McCain has recently denounced Hagee and rejected his support, and I regret to be the first to inform you that Falwell has been dead for over a year. The stuff you're dumping out here sounds like you got it from some way out of date leftwing attack blog.

mccain was tortured in vietnam by his captors and held a firm anti-torture stance at the outset of the war on terror. earlier this year he voted against the ban on waterboarding.

Whether or not waterboarding could be considered "torture" is a debated issue, and provide a citation from a credible source for the claim about McCain's vote, and it's legislative context.

mccain has totally abandoned his previous signature issue, campaign finance reform.

Provide a citation from a credible source.

he previously WROTE legislation seeking to provide amnesty to some illegal immigrants, and now says he would not even vote for his own bills.

What that means is that he's stopped looking like democrats, and of course Bush has SUPPORTED amnesty for illegal aliens, so you got that ass-backwards.

mccain claimed in the run-up to the iraq war that we would have an easy time, that we would be "greeted as liberators,"

That's completely false - that is a quote from Dick Cheney.

and that there was indisputable evidence that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

That is false as well - prove otherwise - you can't.

now that we know none of those things were ever true

,

No, "we" don't know that - how could you prove the negative that Saddam didn't have WMDs? You can't.

mccain talks incessantly about how his record of service makes him uniquely qualified to extricate us from a 'tough' situation in iraq, even though he has made no overtures as to his specific ideas on how to do it, apart from following the bush doctrine of 'no diplomacy. EVER.'

Where to begin. The "no diplomacy" thing has NOTHING to do with Iraq, but only IRAN, and then only while they continue on their path of setting the groundwork for acquiring nuclear weapons, and continue their sponsorship of terrorism all over the world, because there is NO POINT in "diplomacy" while those actions continue. Also "extricate" and "exit strategy" are loser appeaser DEMOCRAT ideas - McCain hasn't come up with a cut-and-run plan because he's not an appeaser - he wants to WIN.

as far as "fresh:"

fresh means that obama doesn't have the stink of a career politician on him, at least not yet,

Oh, all career politicians "stink"? Does Kennedy "stink"? Does pelosi "stink"? And Obama hasn't done anything on a national level - he's "fresh" the same way Hitler was "fresh" in 1933.

and therefore doesn't seem to be driven solely by ambition and lust for power.

Yaaaaaaaa - in four years, goes from state senator of a chicago ghetto district to running for president - no ambition there.

he talks about things like transparency in government and actually acts on them,

There you go again - the Obama cliches that mean nothing, but sound good to Obamabots. What do you mean, exactly, by "transparency"? What "transparency" would he add - exactly?

which is certainly different, even from ultramaverick campaign finance reform guru john mccain, who in this primary season has broken rules he once sought to pass into law.

Like what? Citation?

most people who vote, ON BOTH SIDES, have zero comprehension of real issues. for the rest of us, it is very easy to access a candidate's ideas and policies via the good ol' intertubez.

Yeah - you read moveon.org, so you got it all figured out.

it's no more accurate to call obama an empty suit because if his "change" and "hope" ideas, than it was to call bush the same for his "compassionate conservative" and "uniter not divider" rhetoric.

"Change" for what?? "Hope" for what??

right now, obama is offering what i (and many others) want,

No, he's just repeating his "change" mantra, so all you Obamabots think he's talking to each of you and the change you want -reeeeeeeal clever strategy.

and yes i understand the implications of his actual positions,

Tell us all about the "implications".

in addition to the fact that he's actually inspirational,

I've listened to him, and I'm not inspired, I'm bored. All I hear is meaningless cliches.

can speak eloquently,

Not needed in a president.

and is not another stodgy old idiot white man.

Racism and ageism. Your credibility just went to zero.

if he were to do a crappy job in his first term, i'd vote against him in 2012, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

With any luck of the american people, you'll never get to that bridge.

finally, on cancer:

you keep claiming that mccain is in perfect health and anyone who claims his cancer will likely recur knows nothing about medicine. i think that's you, dude. having one skin cancer makes you over three times more likely to get another-- he's had at least three, so he's about ten times more likely than another 72-year-old man with a history of extensive sun exposure to get cancer (again). given that melanomas in the face and upper torso can relatively easily metastasize to the lymph nodes, it is a totally reasonable concern. that said, he would be the president and would be receiving the best medical care in the world, so i wouldn't say i expect it to happen, but it's not as outlandish as you claim.

The point of my comments blew past you at Mach 3. Listen now: the comments about McCain's health by his physician, the person in a position to know, is that (1) he's cancer-free, and (2) that he is physiologically younger than his chronological age. Another physician who has never examined him, nor seen his tests, erroneously said he's not cancer-free, based only on gross statistics regarding recurrence in the population in general.

sorry for the giant post.

What you need to be sorry for is that you created a post full of false statements, unsupported claims, misattribution of a quote, logical errors, inuenndo, racism, and ageism.

 

[BigRob]

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.

Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers. The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.

Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.

 

[Libsmasher]

gee, since france, the uk, norway, canada, iceland, germany, finland, and several others, that DO have socialized medicine,

"Eat sh__, ten trillion flies can't be wrong."

all have BETTER overall population health,

False.

and spend LESS per capita on healthcare,

Misleading.

i think a lot of people might be willing to give it a shot rather than continue to leave millions of (people/children) without access to so much as routine checkups.

Can you say ANYTHING that isn't a falsehood? The existing medicaid programs provide checkups for the poor and poor children.

but i guess that makes me a statist... as opposed to advocating censures on freedom of speech, freedom of the press,

What are you blathering about there? Who knows?

and reproductive rights,

"Reproductive rights" = abortion.

as well as supporting the unceasing domestic wiretapping and surveillance of american citizens,

The BS is flying thick now - the administration conducts enemy-related electronic sureveillance - a practice started by Abraham Lincoln and conducted by every wartime president since.

as well as excusing the de facto repeal of habeas corpus for US citizens, like yr boy john "what's a shiite" mccain, which is just dandy, right?

Pure fiction.

drilling in anwr would account for less than 5% of our daily oil consumption

Unsubstantiated claim.

(AFTER we spent the better part of a decade and several billion dollars setting up the infrastructure), do nothing to reduce the overall price of oil,

False.

last less than two decades even at that rate, and keep us on dino-juice life support in the mean time. also, it would violently rape a fragile, protected ecosystem and at least one threatened species that inhabits it. the only reason to support drilling there is the money that would line the pockets of oil executives as a result.

Yeah - protect the endanged spotted cricket - walk ten miles to work.

american refinieries are currently operating at peak efficiency and below peak capacity.

Proof?

refinery capacity isn't the problem, supply of crude oil is. that supply has been disrupted and tightened by our voluntary war in iraq.

This is nonsense - Iran, Iraq, everyone is selling all the oil they want to - the only limitation is the restraints put on production by the cartel.

Another one of your fact-free unsupported hit piece posts full of falsehoods and wild unsupported assertions.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

"Eat sh__, ten trillion flies can't be wrong."



False.



Misleading.



Can you say ANYTHING that isn't a falsehood? The existing medicaid programs provide checkups for the poor and poor children.



What are you blathering about there? Who knows?



"Reproductive rights" = abortion.



The BS is flying thick now - the administration conducts enemy-related electronic sureveillance - a practice started by Abraham Lincoln and conducted by every wartime president since.



Pure fiction.



Unsubstantiated claim.



False.



Yeah - protect the endanged spotted cricket - walk ten miles to work.



Proof?



This is nonsense - Iran, Iraq, everyone is selling all the oil they want to - the only limitation is the restraints put on production by the cartel.

Another one of your fact-free unsupported hit piece posts full of falsehoods and wild unsupported assertions.

You are wrong
( See I also can just say that and not back it up with anything)

 

[BigRob]

You are wrong
( See I also can just say that and not back it up with anything)

You are the one who made the initial claim, the burden of proof remains on you to substantiate them.

 

[Libsmasher]

You are wrong
( See I also can just say that and not back it up with anything)

Refuse to rebutt? gosh, that's sort of .... well......cowardly......

I didn't provide "back up" for pointing out that this person made a lot of un-backed up claims? That's a howler right there.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Refuse to rebutt? gosh, that's sort of .... well......cowardly......

I didn't provide "back up" for pointing out that this person made a lot of un-backed up claims? That's a howler right there.

if you want to attack a post as "falsehoods and wild unsupported assertions" it helps your case a lot if you , I don't know provide facts that show why they are wrong or lies? Just a thought. I am use to posts with no facts , its just funny to see a post attacking the lack of facts.....with no facts of your own.

 

[BigRob]

if you want to attack a post as "falsehoods and wild unsupported assertions" it helps your case a lot if you , I don't know provide facts that show why they are wrong or lies? Just a thought. I am use to posts with no facts , its just funny to see a post attacking the lack of facts.....with no facts of your own.

Your initial post offered no facts... that is the problem. When you make a claim you need to back it up.

 

[Libsmasher]

if you want to attack a post as "falsehoods and wild unsupported assertions" it helps your case a lot if you , I don't know provide facts that show why they are wrong or lies? Just a thought. I am use to posts with no facts , its just funny to see a post attacking the lack of facts.....with no facts of your own.

HOW can anyone "support" a claim that something is a falsehood? If you say that I climbed mount everest, and I say "that's false", what more could I possibly say?? Get it? Get it?

Also - if he makes an assertion and doesn't support it, what more need I say than that it's unsupported? That guy makes dozens of baseless claims, and it's up TO ME to post paragraphs refuting them? Nonsense - I wouldn't have time to do anything else. Clearly, it is up to the asserter to support what he says - but don't expect that from that moveon.org operative - he's dumped his hit piece and moved on.

 

[all_arm]

libsmsher:

wow, you are just impossibly dense, aren't you?

ABORTION

did i say anything about what "most people" support? mccain claimed one thing when it was politically expedient, and something else when it became politically expedient.

TAXES:

(then)

In May 2001, Mr. McCain was one of only two Republicans — the other was Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — to vote against President Bush’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut. On the Senate floor, Mr. McCain said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”
Two years later, Mr. McCain was one of three Republicans to vote against additional Bush tax cuts — he and Mr. Chafee were joined by Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine — because, he said then, the costs of the Iraq war were not yet known. Specifically, he said he was open to the idea of tax cuts in the future, “but not until Congress and the administration have a better understanding of the costs of war and peace.”
Later, he said he also opposed the 2003 tax cut because it, too, disproportionately benefited the rich. “I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do,” Mr. McCain told Stephen Moore, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board, in an interview published on Nov. 26, 2005. - article from new york times (yeah of course you think the nyt is a lib rag, doesn't matter because quotes are all documented elsewhere)
--------------------------------------
(now)
"John McCain Will Maintain The Current Income And Investment Tax Rates"
- johnmccain.com

EVANGELICALS

i'm aware of how long jerry falwell has been dead. it doesn't mean that john mccain couldn't change his opinion for political reasons prior to falwell's passing. i'm also aware of mccain's denouncing hagee and parsely, just as i am aware of how their bigoted remarks have been all over youtube since well before they endorsed mccain. so why did mccain seek and accept their endorsements? couldn't be anything political! no way!

TORTURE

jesus h christ, you know as well as i do that mccain voted against the waterboarding ban, you little whiny troll baby.

"His vote was controversial because the manual prohibits waterboarding - a simulated drowning technique that McCain also opposes - yet McCain doesn't want the CIA bound by the manual and its prohibitions. " -cbsnews

so he opposes torture, but won't vote against it? YEAH THERE'S NO ULTERIOR POLITICAL MOTIVES HERE. CARRY ON CITIZEN.

IRAQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFL-Mz4rto&feature=related

quotes on video! guh-huh! like to see you claim that this isn't proof, as i'm sure you will.

and about the wmd's... over five years of having thousands of soldiers on the ground searching for something that would justify this war in the eyes of the public, and they've found nothing. if there was anything there, we would know, period, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.

it's like those claims that there's some secret video of michelle obama floating around, that will sink obama's candidacy (tangent, i know): if it existed, it would have come out. that's how things work.

TRANSPARENCY

"U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) today hailed the Senate's passage of the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans." -senate.gov

see how ridiculous you are? this is why i'm not bothering to answer half of what you say, because you're a blatant troll retard who thinks you're god's freaking chosen internet messenger, doing some great service by "smashing libs." obama ran for senate on the issue of transparency, he acted on it immediately, and it's easy enough to find out about it with a simple google search, but you'd rather sit in your corner raving about "obamoonies" and whatever other crap you come up with.

despite the fact that i've never seen you post a SINGLE fact, you just TROLL these threads saying "proof? proof? proof? cult! cult! cult!"

ANWR

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html

"In the mean oil resource case, ANWR oil production peaks at 780,000 barrels per day in 2027"

us oil consumption:

20,687,000 barrels/day

gee that's around FIVE PERCENT isn't it? some, oh, TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW? that nothing at all like what i said.

i could go on, but if you have intelligence above that of jell-o, you should see a pattern emerging here-- facts, which you do not use, generally support me. i've wasted more than enough time presenting them to a blithering idiot whose mind isn't going to change no matter how right i prove myself to be.

 

[Libsmasher]

libsmsher:

wow, you are just impossibly dense, aren't you?

Here, let me try: You're a real idiot, aren't you?

ABORTION

did i say anything about what "most people" support? mccain claimed one thing when it was politically expedient, and something else when it became politically expedient

But you see that's just false - McCain has been a steadfast opponent of abortion all his life. SEE? That's the problem with you - you have no respect for the truth.

TAXES:

(then)

In May 2001, Mr. McCain was one of only two Republicans — the other was Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — to vote against President Bush’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut. On the Senate floor, Mr. McCain said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”
Two years later, Mr. McCain was one of three Republicans to vote against additional Bush tax cuts — he and Mr. Chafee were joined by Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine — because, he said then, the costs of the Iraq war were not yet known. Specifically, he said he was open to the idea of tax cuts in the future, “but not until Congress and the administration have a better understanding of the costs of war and peace.”
Later, he said he also opposed the 2003 tax cut because it, too, disproportionately benefited the rich. “I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do,” Mr. McCain told Stephen Moore, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board, in an interview published on Nov. 26, 2005. - article from new york times (yeah of course you think the nyt is a lib rag, doesn't matter because quotes are all documented elsewhere)
--------------------------------------
(now)
"John McCain Will Maintain The Current Income And Investment Tax Rates"
- johnmccain.com

You are STILL not supplying citation for all these claims (is that so hard for you?) and could it be that in the seven years since 2001 that economic conditions have changed so that McCain's opinion has changed based on them? Sure SEEMS like they have. Does ANY economist say you can tax your way out of a near recession???

EVANGELICALS


i'm aware of how long jerry falwell has been dead.

Doesn't seem like it. You said:

"mccain called jerry falwell and his ilk 'agents of intolerance' in 2002. he has since reversed his course on falwell"

So McCain is now saying he agrees with a dead person? What in blazes could you possibly mean? You have no citations, no links, besides not having any proof, what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

i'm also aware of mccain's denouncing hagee and parsely,

Oh, you're aware of it, yet a few posts ago you said

"he has since reversed his course on falwell and actively sought endorsements from rod parsely and john hagee,"

So in that post, you are at best trying to mislead and at worst lying.

TORTURE

jesus h christ, you know as well as i do that mccain voted against the waterboarding ban, you little whiny troll baby.

Insults? Are you losing control because someone has called you on your torrent of BS?

"His vote was controversial because the manual prohibits waterboarding - a simulated drowning technique that McCain also opposes - yet McCain doesn't want the CIA bound by the manual and its prohibitions. " -cbsnews

Citations? Links? Looks like you're still making stuff up.

so he opposes torture, but won't vote against it? YEAH THERE'S NO ULTERIOR POLITICAL MOTIVES HERE. CARRY ON CITIZEN.

Ah, you want to duck the issue of whether waterboarding is torture. And still no citations, no links, no proof, and especially no context? Carry on, Captain Hitpiece.

IRAQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFL-Mz4rto&feature=related

quotes on video! guh-huh! like to see you claim that this isn't proof, as i'm sure you will.

What is you proof that we weren't greeted as liberators by the majority of the iraqi people? As opposed to the relative minority of islamofascists killing people? Why did the majority of people go to the polls in numbers greater than US elections and vote if they didn't think they had been liberated from saddam? Now watch your gutless non-response to this. Watch everyone.

and about the wmd's... over five years of having thousands of soldiers on the ground searching for something that would justify this war in the eyes of the public, and they've found nothing. if there was anything there, we would know, period, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.

Absolute illogic. Do you know whether they were given to Syria? No - you don't know. Do you know whether they just haven't been found? No - you don't know. Read a logic 101 book and learn how stupid it is to make such an unproveable negative assertion.

it's like those claims that there's some secret video of michelle obama floating around, that will sink obama's candidacy (tangent, i know): if it existed, it would have come out. that's how things work.

Whaaaaaaaaaattt?? It's YOU who are making the ridiculous unproveable assertion!

TRANSPARENCY

"U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) today hailed the Senate's passage of the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans." -senate.gov

see how ridiculous you are? this is why i'm not bothering to answer half of what you say, because you're a blatant troll retard who thinks you're god's freaking chosen internet messenger, doing some great service by "smashing libs." obama ran for senate on the issue of transparency, he acted on it immediately, and it's easy enough to find out about it with a simple google search, but you'd rather sit in your corner raving about "obamoonies" and whatever other crap you come up with.

John McCain was a CO-SPONSOR with Obama of that bill! Now, don't you feel foolish? You certainly LOOK foolish!

despite the fact that i've never seen you post a SINGLE fact, you just TROLL these threads saying "proof? proof? proof? cult! cult! cult!"

I post facts all the time, including to refute your flood of BS in this thread, which anyone can go back and look at - do you EVER stop lying?

ANWR

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html

"In the mean oil resource case, ANWR oil production peaks at 780,000 barrels per day in 2027"

us oil consumption:

20,687,000 barrels/day

gee that's around FIVE PERCENT isn't it? some, oh, TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW? that nothing at all like what i said.

OH garsh you finally supported one of your assertions - everyone's soooo happy. Your claim that increased production wouldn't lower the price of oil remains nonsense.

And STILL no suport for you claim that McCain has abandoned "campaign reform"?
Any retraction of your defamation that career politicians "stink"?
Any support for your claim that McCain broke campaign laws?

i could go on, but if you have intelligence above that of jell-o, you should see a pattern emerging here-- facts, which you do not use, generally support me. i've wasted more than enough time presenting them to a blithering idiot whose mind isn't going to change no matter how right i prove myself to be.

Yaaaaaa - we've seen you go on and on - with the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. The pattern is clear for you: wild mostly unsupported claims, ommitted facts like McCain's cosponsorship, insults, racism, ageism, outright lies like the Hagee "support" and McCain's opposition to abortion, misrepresenting changed policies for changed times as flip-flopping, refusal to debate key issues such as what constitutes torture, illogic like claiming it's been proven there were no WMDs, misrepresentations of people's positions such as Mccain on diplomacy, false claims about what I said about McCain's health - just as you say - on and on and on.