OBAMA WINS (at last)

The only reason I brought it up is because George was trying to claim that McCain was a man of character while Obama was not.

I said McCain was fallable, as is Obama.

If I held everything I did wrong in my past against me, I couldn't live with myself. It is my opinion that McCain has gotten his act (more) together and that he acts today with character, though certainly not in the past. It is also my opinion that Obama is struggling with that, today.

Sadly, neither of them has led a model public life.
 
The US Noraid armed the IRA

Can you expand on that? My history from that ERA is a little spotty and a google search tries to sell me retirement plans. Wikipedia tells me that the United States tried to keep Thompson sub-machine guns away from the IRA.
 
I said McCain was fallable, as is Obama.

No, you said:

Obama has no character. McCain, though as fallable as Obama, has proven that he has a moral imperative that overrides his ego.


If I held everything I did wrong in my past against me, I couldn't live with myself. It is my opinion that McCain has gotten his act (more) together and that he acts today with character, though certainly not in the past. It is also my opinion that Obama is struggling with that, today.

Sadly, neither of them has led a model public life.

He acts today with character. Hmm. So this is what McCain USED to think of the Bush tax cuts:
"I want a balanced approach. A working families tax cut—Governor Bush has 38 percent of his tax cut go to the wealthiest one percent of Americans—pay down the debt, Social Security and Medicare. If we're going to save Social Security, we've got to take a bunch of the non-Social Security surplus, pump it into the Social Security system, because we all know that it's going broke. If we do that, then people can then invest part of their own payroll taxes in investments of their choice. The difference between Governor Bush's proposal and mine is that I put a whole lot of money into Social Security, Medicare and paying down the debt. He puts a whole lot of money into tax cuts.... Because we'd lay this obligation on another generation of young Americans—$3.6 trillion. At town hall meeting after town hall meeting, I have average Americans stand up to me and say to me, Senator McCain, all these years of running deficits, we've accumulated this debt. We're paying more interest—as much interest, almost, on it as we are in spending on national defense. We ought to pay down that debt, and not saddle the next generation of young Americans with it.... Look, Alan Greenspan just recently said we shouldn't have these massive tax cuts like Governor Bush is proposing. We should pay down the debt. But working families need the tax cut."

Yet now he supports those same tax cuts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403456.html

If that is character, I would prefer a candidate without.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgedwilkinson
I said McCain was fallable, as is Obama.

No, you said:


Quote:
Obama has no character. McCain, though as fallable as Obama

How is "McCain, though as fallable as Obama" not the same as "McCain was fallable"?



He acts today with character. Hmm. So this is what McCain USED to think of the Bush tax cuts:
...snip...

Yet now he supports those same tax cuts:

I alluded to that earlier. How is a candidate changing their mind about financial policy, especially in a dynamic financial landscape, acting without character? A sitting leader's mind might change as they get additional information. I'm sure you change the way you spend and save based on current economic conditions. Shouldn't our president do the same thing?
 
I alluded to that earlier. How is a candidate changing their mind about financial policy, especially in a dynamic financial landscape, acting without character? A sitting leader's mind might change as they get additional information. I'm sure you change the way you spend and save based on current economic conditions. Shouldn't our president do the same thing?

What exactly has changed? Our debt is three times bigger now than it was when he made that speach. Apparently he no longer thinks it is unfair to pass this burden on to my generation. The only "additional information" he got is that he needs to toe the party line in order to be the nominee.
 
We've told you all this before, he was elected by a Scottish electorate who'm he'd bribed and because the oposition was in turmoil that's why so many voters stayed away from the booths, you might also be interested in the fact that the largest public demonstration in British history took part against the illegal, unjust and unwarrented war in Iraq.

...and yet the electorate didnt push Blair out of power. They either were, according to you, bribed or abstained. How does this conflict with my point?
 
What exactly has changed? Our debt is three times bigger now than it was when he made that speach. Apparently he no longer thinks it is unfair to pass this burden on to my generation. The only "additional information" he got is that he needs to toe the party line in order to be the nominee.

The thing that changed (I'm hoping) is that McCain has seen the light and understands that the national debt doesn't matter.
 
Can you expand on that? My history from that ERA is a little spotty and a google search tries to sell me retirement plans. Wikipedia tells me that the United States tried to keep Thompson sub-machine guns away from the IRA.
Wikipedia is, at best, unreliable on many subjects.
I don't have information of any specific weapons involved, but anyone around in the UK when the IRA were still actively killing civilians was well aware of how much fnding they received from the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1562217.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563119.stm
http://www.dirtymoneydigest.com/docs/terrorist_financing/mindset.htm
 
Last edited:
The thing that changed (I'm hoping) is that McCain has seen the light and understands that the national debt doesn't matter.

I am sure the devaluation of the dollar, the crash of the housing market, the escalating cost of gas and food, and the massive load of personal debt carried by Americans also don't matter. On the upside, I now understand why you would consider voting for someone who doesn't really understand the economy.
 
I am sure the devaluation of the dollar, the crash of the housing market, the escalating cost of gas and food, and the massive load of personal debt carried by Americans also don't matter. On the upside, I now understand why you would consider voting for someone who doesn't really understand the economy.

Devaluation of the dollar has nothing to do with the national debt. It is self-correcting.

The housing market crash was caused by mortgage based derivatives and greedy mortgage brokers...and, to a lesser extent, clueless borrowers.

The escalating cost of gas and food is caused by the increased demand for oil globally.

The massive load of personal debt is caused by the people who got in debt and their greedy bankers.

And you're not keeping up...I was considering voting for Obama until I understood his many faults, including him not understanding the economy. And, though McCain doesn't understand the economy, he is coming around. I'm sure these guys must have taken a macro-economics class in college. So I have to assume they were deceived by the media, who learned all about economics from Ross Perot and his out of date charts.
 
Well I am glad everything seems just peachy to you. But the point is, I actually agreed with McCain back in 2000 - the wealthiest people in America don't need tax cuts at the expense of the rest of us and the good of our country, and it is not fair to spend spend spend, and then expect our children pay pay pay. Economically, nothing has changed that would affect his previous position. Therefore, the change in his position could be characterized as "flip flopping", "waffling", or "pandering". Take your pick. In any case, someone who changes their position on such a basic issue simply for political expediency is hardly someone with a strong moral character, as you claimed.
 
Wikipedia is, at best, unreliable on many subjects.
I don't have information of any specific weapons involved, but anyone around in the UK when the IRA were still actively killing civilians was well aware of how much fnding they received from the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1562217.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563119.stm
http://www.dirtymoneydigest.com/docs/terrorist_financing/mindset.htm

The first thing that stikes me about this is that it is not the US who was supplying money to the IRA, which I believed (inaccurately) col was saying, but a group in the US, whose members could easily have been from anywhere, including Essex or Houston.

So, for the record, the US did not supply money to the IRA, according to the links you kindly provided. A non-US affiliated group did.

I guess the thing I'd like to know is how many Americans unwittingly gave money to Noraid. I'd be appalled if any of my money ever made it to them (which is unlikely, since I only give money to causes I understand).
 
Your splitting hairs, Alc said that it came from the US, it did, from US citizens.
How pedantic do you want us all to get?

Brian
 
The first thing that stikes me about this is that it is not the US who was supplying money to the IRA, which I believed (inaccurately) col was saying, but a group in the US, whose members could easily have been from anywhere, including Essex or Houston.


So Coca-Cola is not from the US but from a group of drink makers in the US.

I see now, anything that is not a collective is not therefore associated with the country of origin.

Neat:rolleyes:

Col
 
Hmmm. Let me try again. I was under the impression, accurate or not, that the United States government had sent money to the IRA. I didn't say that anyone led me to believe that. It's just what I thought, inaccurately, when I read Col's post.

I was relieved to find that my inaccurate impression was wrong. Since I know so little about the IRA, as stated earlier, I was asking you guys to enlighten me. You did, I'm enlightened, I'm glad the US Government wasn't supporting the IRA, I hope that US citizens didn't unwittingly give money, I'm sorry that there were US citizens who purposefully supported the IRA, though I don't think there are many.
 
There are any number of "charitable groups" around the world that collect money for "good works". A current example would be the collections for the people who need aid in Myanmar.
Is this money actually going to aid the victims or is it being siphoned off so the Myanmar government can buy new guns and bullets for their soldiers.
The only real safeguard for us caring folks is to give money to well established charitable groups. There is at least some expectaion that your money is probably going for what you donated it for.
 
I was under the impression, accurate or not, that the United States government had sent money to the IRA. I didn't say that anyone led me to believe that. It's just what I thought, inaccurately, when I read Col's post.

What part of "The US Noraid armed the IRA" led you to think I said the US government sent money to the IRA?

Col
 
Dude, I said it was my misunderstanding, not your mis-communication. I honestly knew absolutely nothing about the IRA and feared that Noraid might have been a US Government agency. I was wrong (thankfully).
 
Dude, I said it was my misunderstanding, not your mis-communication. I honestly knew absolutely nothing about the IRA and feared that Noraid might have been a US Government agency. I was wrong (thankfully).

"Dude"? Do people actually say that in real life?

What does it mean? Is it a derogatory word?

Col
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom