Disagree with you. McCain's amendment
Posted By: Backwards typist on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: YES, that way we could sit on our hands while Rome burns! - sm
cut the stimulus to $450B, leaving in all the housing, tax cuts, etc. Most of the dems voted against it. I haven't seen the stats yet on it; i.e., who voted nay, but I know most of them were dems because I was watching.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
McCain's amendment
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003025568&cpage=4
"Provide almost everything for the people..." What exactly do you mean by this?
McCain's $421 billion substitute amendment included $275 billion in income tax reductions and corporate tax breaks, along with $50 billion in spending on entitlement programs (otherwise known as corporate welfare or pork). So much for everything for the people.
McCain told Katie Couric that the stimulus bill "...has no provisions to put us on the path of a balanced budget..."
McCain also claimed to Hugh Hewitt that a number of FDR's policies "...exacerbated the Great Depression..."
I got news for you, John. It was FDR's attempt to BALANCE THE BUDGET and CUT FEDERAL SPENDING in 1937 under pressure from Republicans that "exacerbated the Great Depression."
McCain has always said that economics weren't his strong suit.
McCain's Amendment
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003025568&cpage=4
"Provide almost everything for the people..." What exactly do you mean by this?
McCain's $421 billion substitute amendment included $275 billion in income tax reductions and corporate tax breaks, along with $50 billion in spending on entitlement programs (otherwise known as corporate welfare or pork). So much for everything for the people.
McCain told Katie Couric that the stimulus bill "...has no provisions to put us on the path of a balanced budget..."
McCain also claimed to Hugh Hewitt that a number of FDR's policies "...exacerbated the Great Depression..."
I got news for you, John. It was FDR's attempt to BALANCE THE BUDGET and CUT FEDERAL SPENDING in 1937 under pressure from Republicans that "exacerbated the Great Depression."
McCain has always said that economics weren't his strong suit.
Just as I thought- all dems voted against McCain's amendment.
The democrats tried to object to his even reading of his statements yesterday. Guess they were afraid he would sway some votes. This is long, but please read.
----
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have is a product of a lot of work from a number of Senators on this side of the aisle. I especially thank Senator Martinez of Florida, a great leader on this issue, along with Senator Thune, Senator Graham, and many other Senators who have been involved in this discussion. This is an alternative we believe would truly create jobs and stimulate our economy. The total cost is around $421 billion.
I wish, before I describe the amendment--and I know others of my colleagues want to discuss this amendment--I wish to point out it is very clear that public opinion in this country is swinging against the proposal that is now before the Senate and was passed by the other body. They are opposed because they see now in the Senate a $995 billion package which could reach more than $1.2 trillion. Many Americans, certainly now a majority, do not see it as a way to create jobs and to stimulate our economy. They see it loaded down with unnecessary spending programs. They see it, very correctly, with policy changes which deserve extended debate and voting on their own, such as ``Buy American'' provisions, Davis-Bacon, giving Federal workers new whistleblower protections. Some of these policy changes may be laudable, others are not, at least in my view, but all of them deserve debate and discussion rather than being placed in a piece of legislation that is intended to stimulate our economy and create jobs.
I think it is time that we also understand how we got where we are. I have been around this body long enough to recognize that we are now entering the final phase of consideration of this package. Whether it be today or over the weekend or early next week, this bill will be disposed of one way or another by the Senate. So how did we get to where we are today, with a $995 billion package, at least, or $1.2 trillion, or perhaps more than that, with a bill that probably would create, in the view of the administration--and I do not agree with it--3 million jobs, which would mean that each job that is created by it costs the taxpayers $275,000. I do not think many Americans believe that each job created should cost $275,000 of their hard-earned tax dollars.
In fact, the response my office is getting borders on significant anger when we talk about many of the funding programs that are in the stimulus bill. I will go through several of them later on, but $400 million for STD prevention; $40 million to make park services more energy efficient; $75 million for smoking cessation. It is hard to argue that, even though these provisions, many of them, may be worthwhile, they actually create jobs. So we have strayed badly from our original intent of creating a situation in America to reverse the terrible decline and economic ditch in which we find the American economy, to the point we have had spending programs and policy provisions which have nothing to do with stimulating the economy and creating jobs. It may be Government--let me put it this way. It may be legislative activity, possibly, at its worst.
We are offering today an alternative at less than half the cost that we think creates jobs and stimulates the economy. I remind my colleagues, despite the rhetoric about bipartisanship, this bill originated in the House of Representatives, as is constitutionally appropriate. There was no Republican input whatsoever. It passed the other body on a strict party-line basis with the loss of 11 Democrats and came over to this body, where in both the Appropriations and the Finance Committees, almost every Republican amendment was rejected on party lines.
I appreciate very much that the President of the United States came over to address Republican Members of the Senate and Republican Members of the House. The tenor of his remarks I think was excellent. But the fact is, we did not sit down and seriously negotiate between Republican and Democrat. I have been involved in many bipartisan efforts in this body, for many years, that have achieved legislative result. The way you achieve it is not to come over and talk to a body. The answer is to sit down and seriously negotiate and come up with compromises which result in legislation which is good for the country.
That has not happened in this process. Again, the American people are figuring it out. I am confident, because of the way this process has taken place, that gap, which is now 43-37, the majority of the American people opposing this package, will grow.
A majority of the American people still believe we have to stimulate the economy and create jobs. I agree with them. But to spend $1.2 trillion on it, and have no provision for when the economy recovers to put us back on the path of fiscal sanity and stability--as the amendment that I had last night was rejected; we got 44 vote--does not provide the American people with confidence that spending will stop at some time.
One thing they have learned is that spending programs that are initially supposed to be temporary become permanent. They become permanent. That is a historical fact.
So we have initiated nearly $1 trillion--many in new spending, some hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending--with no provision, once the economy has recovered--and the economy will recover in America--this is no path to balancing the budget. Instead, we laid a $700 billion debt on future generations of America in the form of TARP, we are laying $1.2 trillion additional in the form of this bill, and another half a trillion dollars in the omnibus appropriations bill, and then we are told there will be a necessity for another TARP, which could be as much as $1 trillion, because of our declining economy. Yet there has been no provision whatsoever, once the economy recovers, to put us back on a path to balancing the budget and reducing and perhaps eliminating--hopefully eliminating--this debt we have laid on future generations of Americans.
I used to come down to the floor here, and have over the years, and argue against provisions in appropriations bills--which, by the way, has led to corruption. I notice there is another individual staffer who is being charged today, or yesterday, for inappropriate behavior with Mr. Abramoff.
There used to be hundreds of thousands and sometimes thousands. Now, they are in the millions and billions, tens of millions and billions. My how we have grown.
Do we need $1 billion for national security at the Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities to create jobs? We may need $1 billion for National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activity, but to say it will create jobs and will stimulate the economy is a slender reed.
There is nobody who appreciates more than this person the contribution that Filipino war veterans made to winning the Second World War. We are going to give millions of dollars to those who live in the Philippines. Do not label that as job stimulation.
Smoking cessation is something that we all support. How does $75 million for smoking cessation create jobs within the next years that would justify expenditures of $75 million?
This body, in the name of increasing health care for children, raised taxes by some $61 billion, I guess it is, on tobacco use. So we now hope people will use tobacco in order to pay for insurance for children. But the fact is, $75 million for smoking cessation should be an issue that is brought up separately and on its own. And the list goes on and on and on.
Our proposal--I am grateful for the participation of so many Senators--would allocate approximately $275 billion in tax cuts. It would eliminate the 3.1 percent payroll tax for all employees for 1 year and use general revenues to pay for the Social Security obligation.
It would allocate $60 billion to lower the 10-percent tax bracket to 5 percent for 1 year. It would lower the 15-percent tax bracket to 10 percent for 1 year. It would lower corporate tax brackets from 35 percent to 25 percent for 1 year.
[Page: S1619] GPO's PDF
We alarmed the world with the ``Buy American'' provisions which are included in this bill. The reaction has been incredible, and the fact is, jobs flee America for a number of reasons. But one of them is we have the highest business taxes of any nation in the world. We used to have among the lowest.
So if we really want to create jobs in America and attract capital and investment for the United States of America, we need to lower the corporate tax bracket. We need to have accelerated depreciation for capital investments for small businesses. We need to assist Americans in need, there is no doubt about that. There are Americans who are wounded and are hurting today. It is not their fault.
We need to extend the unemployment insurance benefits. That is a $38 billion pricetag. We need to extend food stamps. We need to extend unemployment insurance benefits, make them tax free. That is a $10 billion pricetag. And, of course, we need to provide workers with training and employment. That is a $50 billion cost.
We need to keep families in their homes. We needed, and we did adopt last night, the $15,000 tax credit. But we also need to fund the increase in the fee that servicers receive from continuing a mortgage and avoiding foreclosure. We need to have GSE and FHA conforming loan limits. That is $32 billion. We also, by the way, need to do more in the housing area.
You know, it is interesting in all of these spending proposals we have, there is not one penny for defense, not one penny. Obviously, we are going to have to reset our military. We need to replace the aging equipment that has been used so heavily in Iraq and will be needed in Afghanistan.
We need to improve and repair and modernize the barracks, the facilities and infrastructure that directly support the readiness and training of the Armed Forces. We do not have that in the now $995 billion package that is before us. Obviously, we need to spend money on military construction projects which will create jobs immediately. Those people who say that is not the case, I can provide for the record adequate information that many of our military construction projects could begin more quickly than those that are not on our military bases because of environmental and other concerns.
We need to spend $45 billion on transportation infrastructure. There are grants to States to build and repair roads and bridges, including $10 billion for discretionary transportation grants, and $1 billion for roads on Federal lands. Public transit, obviously, we need to fund, and airport infrastructure improvements are necessary, along with small business loans. That is about $63 billion in our proposal.
Finally, the American people believe, and I think correctly, spending is out of control in our Nation's Capital. We continue to spend and spend and spend. We not only have accumulated over a $10 trillion deficit, this will add another $1 trillion or more. I mentioned the TARP of $700 billion, all of which is being paid for--we are printing money in order to fund it.
At some point we are going to have to get our budget balanced or our children and our grandchildren are going to pay the bill. I recommend that this body hear as much as possible from David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office, in the Congress of the United States. He paints a stark picture. In my view, it is also time that we establish entitlement commissions: one for Social Security and one for Medicare-Medicaid and make recommendations so we can act on what is a multi-trillion-dollar deficit in Social Security and over a $40 trillion debt on Medicare and Medicaid.
Unless we address these long-term entitlement issues, there is no way we are going to be able to prevent the majority of Americans' taxes from being devoted to those two programs. So we need to establish those commissions and we need to put them to work and we need to put them to work right away.
Now, I am told there is general agreement. Why not do it now? Why not do it now? We also need better accountability, better transparency, better oversight, and better results. Among many disappointments we have over TARP, one was that we were told the Congress and the American people would have oversight and transparency, and they would know exactly how that initial $350 billion was being spent.
The American people and Members of Congress have been bitterly disappointed as TARP shifted from one priority to another. Funds went to the automotive industry, which none of us had anticipated when we voted for and approved it. We need more transparency and accountability and oversight of how this, probably the biggest single emergency spending package in the history of this country, is being spent.
I notice I have other Members here who wish to speak on this issue. I hope we can pass this alternative, some $421 billion, to what has now surged to over $1 trillion. It probably may not pass for the reasons of numbers, but if we do not sit down and negotiate and come up with a package that is more than a $50- or $60- or $80 billion reduction, when we are talking about $1.2 trillion, the American people will not be well served.
They will not be well served by requiring Davis-Bacon, they will not be well served by requiring ``Buy American,'' they will not be well served by spending their hard-earned dollars on unnecessary programs that even though in the eyes of some may have virtue, have no or very little association with job creation and relief for Americans who are struggling to stay in their homes and either keep their jobs or go out and find a new one.
I believe the United States of America will recover from the economic crisis. I have a fundamental faith, belief, that American workers are the most productive, the most innovative, and the best in the world. But they need some help right now. What they need is the right kind of help.
I urge my colleagues, when you see the money that is being spent in the name of job creation and stimulus that is laying a debt burden on our children and our grandchildren, we need to have serious consideration of this kind of spending because it is not fair, not only to this generation of Americans but to future generations as well.
Senator McCain opposes Marriage Protection Amendment
Senator McCain opposes Marriage Protection Amendment
Sen. McCain has said he will oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment (MAP), which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, when it comes up for a vote on June 6th.
Sen. McCain says it should be left up to each individual state to define marriage. Can you imagine the mess if that happened! Fifty different laws defining marriage! That is totally unworkable. Our forefathers knew the mess that would create, and that is the reason marriage fell under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
One liberal activist Federal judge could strike down the marriage laws in all 50 states because they would be so confusing and conflicting.
In reality, a vote for the MAP is a vote for traditional marriage. A vote against the MPA (which Sen. McCain currently plans to do) is, in reality, a vote for homosexual marriage.
Remember that no matter how Sen. McCain explains his opposition to the MPA, the bottom line is that a vote against it is a vote for homosexual marriage.
Senator McCain needs to hear from you today! Call him using one of the district office numbers below. If the line is busy keep calling until you get through.
Take Action |
Please call Senator McCain today and tell him to vote for the MPA. If his lines are busy, please keep trying. He needs to hear from you personally.
Washington DC office:
202-224-2235
District Offices:
Phoenix 602-952-2410
Tempe 480-897-6289
Tucson 520-670-6334
|
One of the things I disagree with McCain...he doesn't know a socialist...sm
when he sees one.
But hey, that falls into his 50% of stuff I don't agree with...hehe
that should be First Amendment
typing too fast - oops.
The first amendment does NOT
give you the right to infringe on the rights of others.
this is from "On Liberty of Speech and the Press" by Alexander Addison: "It is of the utmost importance to a free people, that the just limits of their rights be well ascertained and preserved; for liberty without limit is licentiousness; and licentiousness is the worst kind of tyranny, a tyranny of all. To preserve ourselves against this, and maintain true liberty, a line must be drawn between the rights of each; so well marked, as that it be known by all, and so well guarded, as that it cannot be passed by any with impunity. Thus every man will be free; for every man may exercise his rights to the extent of their just limits, and cannot go beyond those limits and encroach on the rights of others..."
And in fact, "...In its first free exercise case, involving the power of government to prohibit polygamy, the (Supreme) Court invoked a hard distinction between (freedom to believe and freedom to act), saying that although laws ''cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.''
1st Amendment
Well, I see the second amendment going first but don't be surprised when you see your first amendment disappear too.
Honestly? I think Pelosi scares me more than Obama and Biden combined.
The 1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anything that says it stops at insulting the president.
And I still disagree. We shall agree to disagree. But....
welome to the board! A new voice is welcome, whichever side the voice decides to fall. :)
I think it's called the First Amendment.
The poster isn't *getting away* with anything. He/she is exerting his/her constitutional right to form and voice an opinion. Just so happens what the poster said is true about Bush having the Saudis being escorted out of the U.S., and if I remember correctly, some of those escorted were relatives of Bin Laden.
Like I said, the poster isn't *gettin away* with anything because the poster hasn't done anything wrong. The person who has *gotten away* with a lot of illegal, immoral, unethical acts is Bush.
Second Amendment point
You said, "The constitution may be slowly being eroded away, but luckily nobody had taken away the second ammendment."
That's something we all have to fight against. They have been trying for years to do this, but thank heavens for the NRA. Sure, they are somewhat radical at times, but they do protect the right to bear arms. I surely don't want to live in a country where only the criminals have guns and I want the right to defend myself as said earlier.
Whatever happened to the First Amendment?
I rarely watch Fox News because I simply don't trust them to be "fair and balanced," after actually watching them a few years ago.
However, they have the same rights as MSNBC, CNN, HLN, etc., and I think that singling them out in order to silence them goes against the First Amendment that this country stands for.
Let them fall or survive on their own merit (or lack of same).
While we still have 1st amendment rights
our opinions, short of using obscenities. As soon as the Thought Police are empowered, this may change, but currently we are free to say what we think.
I personally do not think Obama is stupid or naive, but I do believe he is a suck-up when it comes to currying favor with foreign countries and throwing his own country under the bus to do it. He really believes that the worse he can make this country's history look, the more radiant his countenance will appear in comparison. He truly believes he is the Hope Diamond in a hog wallow. The arrogance is all his.
The second amendment phrase that
gun control supporters always fall back on is ''well regulated militia''. But the militia back then was considered to be all able-bodied males capable of fighting. Also, having had such recent experience with the tyranny of an out-of-control government, our founders wiisely built the right to possess and bear arms into our constitution to make sure our new government did not become too big for its britches.
I believe it was in Justice Scalia's opinion on the Heller case (or maybe in his questioning of the pro-gun-control attorney) that I read something to the effect that in revolutionary war times firearms were necessary to procure food and also to protect ourselves and families from hostile attacks, bears, wolves, and other predators. Nowadays most of us don't have to fight off wild animals anymore; the predators have become.....us.
Now Bush ignores the 4th Amendment
and conducts illegal PHYSICAL searches of not just suspected terrorists (i.e. any American who disagrees with his policies), but breaks into the homes of the ATTORNEYS for these suspects, as well.
If you have any fondness for the Constitution, this might chill your bones a bit. 
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/17.html#a7564
The 19th amendment for starters...sm
Before the Nineteenth Amendment, most states only granted men the RIGHT to vote. Suffragettes - those who campaigned for a woman's right to vote - were successful in 1920, when the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Encouraged women campaigned for women's rights. Several women's organizations requested an Amendment that guaranteed Equal Rights. (Congress actually proposed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, but it expired under its own terms in 1982 since three-fourths of the states had not ratified it.) However, after gaining suffrage, women lost most battles for equality.
Image:1919 US Woman Suffrage.PNG
Women's Suffrage in the United States in 1919, before the Nineteenth Amendment
try the 15th amendment to the Constitution...sm
15th Amendment to the Constitution
The 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote. 
Revoked, not upholding the amendment,
It all boils down to the same thing. They were never allowed to exercise their right. Whatever, once again, semantics. I have an idea -- Get a real life.
Dred Scott Amendment.............sm
And if you want to get really technical about it, had this amendment not passed (and there was a chance it might not have as it was highly debated at the time) then no person living in the US who descended from slave ancestors could have become citizens as the slaves were not exactly here legally. They were considered property and not persons with rights. It got into a really big stinky situation before it was all over and the 14th was passed.
McConnell Amendment to H.R. 2 (SCHIP)
did not pass.It was 32 ayes to 65 nays.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first amendment is freedom of speech. You are the one squelching it. sm
I said I agreed that I was not respecting the rules. YOU are not respecting freedom of speech. Obviously and easy to prove. However, I will from this point forward respect the rules and not post here. Anyway, I am not a conservative. I was just making a point. That has nothing to do with politics. It's too bad you must label everything when someone proves you wrong
Pretty stupid, because the 15th amendment was never revoked. And soon
after it was ratified, by the beginning of 1868, more than 700,000 blacks had registered to vote. Black voters gained majorities in South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, and Mississippi. The southern black voters elected many black politicians in the majority states and throughout the South: fourteen black politicians were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, and two to the Mississippi State Senate.
The right for blacks to vote has NEVER been revoked. The KKK may have made it difficult for black Americans to vote for a time, but they always had the right!
States with pending/passed 10th Amendment Sovereignty resolutions. sm
These resolutions are important to prevent the Federal government from usurping State Sovereignty. This is a partial list as other states are jumping on board the last few months. Colorado is one and New Hampshire just failed to get one passed thanks to partisan problems.
To read one of the resolutions, here is a link to one from the state of Arizona:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm
2009: Arkansas - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: Arizona - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment
1994: California - 10th Amendment
1995/96: Georgia - 10th Amendment
2009: Georgia - 10th Amendment
2009: Kansas - 10th Amendment
[NEW] 2009: Kentucky - 10th Amendment
1997/98: Louisiana - Sovereignty Constitutional Amendment
2009: Michigan - 10th Amendment
2009: Minnesota - 10th Amendment
2009: Missouri - Freedom of Choice Act (Abortion), 10th Amendment
2009: Montana - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, 2nd Amendment
2009: New Hampshire - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Federal Reserve, Taxes, Martial Law, 2nd Amendment, Draft/War, Patriot Act, Labor Camps, 1st Amendment
2008: Oklahoma - 10th Amendment, (Other Legislation: No Child Left Behind, Real ID Act)
2009: Oklahoma - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
2009: South Carolina - 9th Amendment, 10 Amendment, Martial Law and Related, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment
2009: Tennessee - 10th Amendment
2009: Texas - 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Funding Issues
1995: Utah [Number: HJR003, Session: 1995] - 10th Amendment
2009: Utah - Real ID Act
2009: Washington - 10th Amendment
Why are you McCain people so desperate? You are just like McCain. No plan. Just criticism of the
other candidate. I guess you want the same old thing we have had for the past 8 years. God forbid McCain win with that wild woman, Palin.
Disagree..sm
It takes a heartless person to say that the 9-11 widows are doing this for money. WHAT MONEY??? The insurance policy? Stop kidding yourself. Losing a love one and gaining an insurance policy is not everyones object of affection. This is the same effect of a mother losing her child to a drowning and then pushing for swiming safety, or victim of a sex predator pushing for tougher sex laws.
As far as Hillary, I think she is just as outraged as anyone else should be at Ann's comments, and the fact that Ann gets media coverage to tout this stuff is just as mind numbing.
All you said about Ann I agree, plus add hatred, evil, and prejudice and you have her pegged.
disagree here also
Colter is a hatemonger, thats all. I heard every hour of AL Franken's program and he never said anything outrageous like she/it. Al Franken was quite witty and entertaining and merely give his listeners the facts that were suppressed elsewhere. He was on the story about Asian factory workers forced to have abortions by their American bosses way before other outlets were discussing it. Really!! Stop trying to pull the wool ....
I would have to disagree with you.
No surprise there right?
I would like to note that all social reform to take place in the United States has been at the heels of a liberal movement. From our breaking off with Britain in the mid 1700s, to civil war in the mid 1800s, and the liberal movement of the mid 1960s. Liberalism as a belief has moved from Republican to Democrat and back again more than once. Taking your stance on pro-life and moving it to the time of mid 1800s would put you for all intents and purposes under the Democratic wing.
As the saying goes, complacency breeds contempt, and I believe that we are now in the beginnings of another liberal movement. A little quicker than our 100 year mark, but with the speed that the world is changing, so must we.
We as a people and government have to embrace change, that is the true nature of liberalism.
Realistically, your views/postings justify the label. You may not wish it, but by just expressing them promotes it. The fact that you have never mentioned the remote possibility of voting Democrat, which at this point in our history leans toward the liberal, and only looking at the Republican party is labeling. If you did not want to be labeled or wish not to be, you wouldn't be so quick to make your conservative opinions heard.
As I frequently tell my husband, if you get too caught up in the details, you will lose the bigger picture, which usually leads me to telling him that he gets in his own way more often than not. 
I disagree
First these are pics of him NOT in his uniform. True, there are some pics of him in his uniform in some of the ads, but others he is in civilian clothes. It gives me the same feeling as when I went to the health food store and spent $50 for a large can of protein powder and got got home and the can was half empty. I call it "deception". I also think by reminding us of his time in the service he is reminding us that he was a POW and he's got a grudge against people in other countries and he's going to use his position for revenge. That's what I see when I'm reminded of his uniform.
Second - his mind. No it's not a cheap shot, its the truth. Everytime he speaks he misstates himself. When talking about the countries at work he gets the different countries mixed up and has got to constantly be correct by Lieberman or others standing around him. When asked about his voting record on important issues he can't remember how he voted and he even stated so. One time he said "I can't remember how I voted on that issue". It was an important issue and I looked at my DH and said what does he mean he can't remember, how would you forget something like that. So I think the state of his mind is an important factor in whether I will vote for him.
As for Obama...I was not talking about Obama in my post. I was talking about McCain, but since you brougnt it up, sure there are things I may not like about him but his speaking ability and remembering important issues are not one of them. Saying he can't make speeches without a teleprompter or planned statement is just not true. He has spoken at several events without a teleprompter or prepared speeches and he can think on his feet just fine. I didn't hear him stumble over questions given by audience members or media. I'm sure you probably heard that from some conservative programs like Fox or Rush Limbaugh.
i must disagree
I have read many of his columns. He is a right wing extremist.
Disagree....
...and really, just have to laugh out loud.
Sarah Palin has more experience than Barack Obama. Just wait and watch.
Every time, every person, be in on Obama's own team, Obama himself, Biden, or you for that matter....say that she has no experience....
Well guess what? She has more leadership experience than Obama.
She has been in charge and running a government.
She has been the governor of Alaska since 2006.
She was the mayor of a city, Wasilla, Alaska.
So I ask you. How can you, or anyone out there, sit there and say she has no experience to be VP....when you have a candidate running for President who has even less experience for her.
Explain that one to me.
And while you're doing that, think about how bad Obama will look every single time anyone, anywhere, brings up her lack of experience....as that will only highlight and reinforce his own, sadly lacking leadership background and experience.
Disagree. sm
I feel the reason New Orleans went under was because the National Guard, tanks, etc. were all in Iraq.
Doesn't it bother you that Palin actually said, her son was going to Iraq to fight the people that attacked us? Clueless.
I agree that McCain is a war hero, so is my dad, but he certainly is not qualified to be President.
I have to disagree with you on that.
Nm
and I disagree with you so
maybe we both will be kicked off too for disagreeing.
Sam does research before posting an answer to some of the statements told here, then posts the links so we can all see what is the truth, not just a few. Anyone who cares anything about this country would do the same. It's not rocket science. The problem is some people on this board don't care to listen. They're right and everybody else is wrong.They think sam is attacking them personally, when he/she is not, just stating FACTS, not untruths.
Sorry, OT, but I must disagree
The liberal media would be analyzing his choice till the cows came home.
Well, I disagree. s/m
Did you miss the part where he said, "I'm the decider."? His old buddy Richard (message says *ick is a bad word.........well, on that we can agree) is guilty right along with him. I do not think history will be kind to him. But then it WAS kind to FDR until the republicans came out with their "study" to excuse the fact that Hoover was, before Bush, acknowledged to be the worst president in history.
I say while you're putting Palin on her dogsled back to Alaska, hitch up a couple of longhorns and point Bush and Cheney back to Texas. Trouble is I don't think Texas wants them.
Again, you and I disagree.
While I do not agree with you, I do respect your right to your opinion.
disagree, because
McCain has plenty of energy to get the job and more done; and Palin has more experience than even Obama... Yes, our govn't has lots of checks and balances, but if you put a democratic pres in, with a democ house and democ senate, you have a steamroller effect and dem's have not been very good about 'reaching across the aisle'. Besides, some of the "changes" that may occur in an obama reign may take decades to un-do (appointments of judges for example) and if it makes our country more unsafe and we suffer an enemy attack, that's irreparable damage to lives, and longterm for economy, etc. What about all the jobs lost with his economic (so-called:) plan, and taxation which will hurt small business and cost jobs? (100% of job growth has been in small business) How many more will lose homes, etc under Obama after losing their jobs? How screwed up will our healthcare system become? No, i want a safe USA, i want a stable growing economy, etc and will vote McCain.
I disagree
McCain is not throwing people off his bus because they don't report him in a good light.
McCain is not banning newspaper interviews because they ask him serious questions.
McCain is not banning networks because they ask him serious questions.
The O is doing all of this.
Just because I disagree with you...
does not make me any more closed minded than you apparently are. It is painfully obvious that neither one of is interested in what the other has to say. If you are not interested in debating with me, you could have just ignored my post. I would not, however, count on those greener pastures.
I disagree
What the president elect does in the days prior to his inauguration is important in terms of choosing his staff, etc, but we're not all as enamored of him as some of you, to want to sit googly-eyed in front of the TV and watch his every photo op.
The important points of his pre-inauguration decisions can be covered in the news or newspaper. I think a lot of us still watch the news and read the newspaper.
Anyone can disagree
with one another. That is human nature. I can respect someone that can give point and counter point without getting nasty. There is no need for name calling or veiled side of the mouth comments. I would love a decent conversation with others whose opinions are or are not always the same as mine.
I have to disagree..........sm
With the government overseeing and directing healthcare to the point that a doctor cannot treat a patient the way that patient needs to be treated, it will be much worse. This measure would also discourage or possibly prohibit the development of new medications and new therapies that could, for instance, cure cancer (or the common cold, which the way I have felt for the past 3 weeks, wouldn't be a bad thing). It could also prohibit the treatment of patients with too many comorbid conditions. Would you want your doctor to tell you that he can't treat your mother for cancer because she has Alzheimer disease and she's terminal anyway? Would you want your child who has cystic fibrosis denied treatment of leukemia because the cystic fibrosis is terminal? Personally, I don't want the government taking over my healthcare, regardless of how much money it might save me.
Disagree
Where are you coming up with this stuff? That doesn't make any sense at all. Boy, are we in trouble with this kind of nonsense.
I disagree with you.
I have owned Ford, Chrysler, Chevy, American Motors, Rambler, etc. I have been a fan of Oldsmobilie and Buicks since We bought our first one back in the 80s.
GM's problem is they stopped producting the good cars. I was on their website today. No Olds, only 2 Buicks left. They only produce expensive gas guzzlers like Cadillacs, Saab, and Hummers.
Our LeSabre got 30 mpg and still running strong at 175,000. Shame the rest of the car is not good enought to pass inspection. Same with our Olds. Are they producing them? Nope. Why? They were mid-priced cars with great reliability, great gas mileage, and I like to say popular with middle class people. They now only product the LaCrosse and Lucerne in the Buick line. They don't even produce the Park Avenue which was a luxurious car and one I always wanted (champagne tastes on a beer budget - LOL).
I won't be buying a new car from GM. There's nothing there I like. They should have thought about phasing out more of the expensive lines than the middle class lines. That's where they went wrong. They probably thought if they stuck to the expensive models, they'd make more money. WRONG!!! They didn't take into consideration the ratio between middle class buyers and upper class buyers.
As for Chrysler, I owned 2. They were lemons from the get-go. Hubby owned a couple Fords and they were not very reliable either.
I must disagree with you on this one.
At least the part about Obama being the best thing that has ever happened to us. I don't think that is true at all. I think he has wasted more money spending in such a short time that I hope and pray we don't have him for 8 years. 4 is long and bad enough.
I disagree with you.
The only reason Aunt Louise mentioned how hot it is going to get was to further her religious agenda. She was not referring to global warming in her post, she was referring to what she believes will happen to those who do not hold her same religious beliefs.
By the way, I have never said or implied in any way that posters are not entitled to their own opinion, whether it differs with mine or not. Every person who posts on MTStars is entitled to express their opinion and agree or disagree with the opinions of other posters.
Sorry, but I so disagree with this.
x
if you disagree
Don't marry someone the same sex as you. I think it is a wonderful thing whenever 2 people that love each other make a commitment to be wed.
OMG. I disagree!
Either way, I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DISAGREE! Rick Warren also disagrees and it should be 1 man and 1 woman when it comes to marriage.
|
